Loading...
CC 2021-01-26_09a Resolution Adopting the 2020 Housing Element Update  MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER/ ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: ANDREW PEREZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE DATE: JANUARY 26, 2021 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the 2020 Housing Element Update (HEU), supported by an addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), will allow for submittal to the State for review and final certification and ensure compliance with State Housing Laws requiring updates to the City’s adopted Housing Element. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Adoption of the HEU will not impact financial and personnel resources. Funding for preparation of the HEU by the City’s consultant, PlaceWorks, is provided through grant funding from the State under SB 2. Staff resources will be required to implement programs identified in the HEU while some programs may be completed by consultants funded through grants. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting the 2020 Housing Element Update, and consider, rely upon and adopt an addendum to the General Plan EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BACKGROUND: The City’s Housing Element is one of eight (8) mandatory elements of the Arroyo Grande General Plan and is a critical component of the City’s blueprint to providing affordable housing opportunities in the community. State law mandates that a Housing Element identify and analyze projected housing needs, identified goals, policies, programs, and quantitative objectives to further the development of housing within the City. Updates to the Housing Element occur on regular schedules, typically referred to as cycles. The current Housing Element was adopted in March 2016, and covers the period between Item 9.a. - Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE JANUARY 26, 2021 PAGE 2 June 30, 2014 – June 30, 2019 (the fifth cycle). The next cycle will cover the period of December 30, 2020, through December 31, 2028 (the sixth cycle). The Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Updating the Housing Element allows the City the opportunity to identify housing goals and policies to address the future housing needs within the City. The update reviews the progress of programs from the current Housing Element, assesses housing constraints, and identifies strategies to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA represents the number of housing units the City needs to plan for over the next eight (8) years, broken down into four (4) income categories. HCD determines the housing need for the region using population growth projections. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) then develops a methodology to distribute the regional need among each of the seven cities and the unincorporated portions of San Luis Obispo County. Based on the RHNA process for this housing element cycle, Arroyo Grande is required to plan for 692 of the 10,810 units assigned to San Luis Obispo County as a whole. The 692 units are broken down by income level, as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation by Income Level Income Category Number of Units Very Low Income 170 Low Income 107 Moderate Income 124 Above Moderate Income 291 Total 692 State law does not require construction of the 692 units, but requires the Housing Element to show that the City can accommodate those units through available land and zoning designation. Preparation of the Draft Housing Element Update On November 12, 2019, City Council approved a Consultant Services Agreement with PlaceWorks to update the Housing Element. The process of updating the Housing Element began with a vacant sites analysis and review of the previous Housing Element’s programs. The draft HEU reduced the overall number of programs when compared to the current element. Programs from the current element that remained relevant have been carried over into the update, while programs that were redundant were combined with similar programs. Programs that either accomplished the quantified objective or were inconsistent with State housing laws were deleted. In addition, the draft HEU identified sites within the City that could accommodate the number of units needed to meet the RHNA assigned to the City. Preparation work on the draft HEU also included development Item 9.a. - Page 2 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE JANUARY 26, 2021 PAGE 3 of a regional chapter. Representatives of the County, each of the seven cities, and SLOCOG developed this regional chapter to be integrated into each jurisdiction’s Housing Element and is aimed at highlighting the ongoing commitment of each agency to the collaborative effort being undertaken to address critical housing and related infrastructure needs throughout the County. Planning Commission Study Session On October 6, 2020, a study session was held before the Planning Commission regarding the draft Housing Element Update. The Commission reviewed and commented on the draft HEU and received comments from the public (see Attachment 4 for meeting minutes). The Commission was generally supportive of the draft HEU and wanted to see policies and programs that increase density and encourage affordable housing production while preserving the current character and quality of life. The Commission provided the following comments:  Consider policies to encourage “missing middle” types, such as duplexes and triplexes.  Create a policy to encourage the incorporation of childcare and/or intergenerational care facilities in multi-family residential projects  Consider a program to create objective design standards to streamline housing production The current draft HEU proposed for adoption includes policies and programs to address each of these concerns, as described in detail later in this report. Many of the same concerns regarding missing middle housing types and childcare facilities were echoed during the public comment period. Speakers from the public also expressed concern with the reliance on accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development to meet the City’s RHNA. Revisions to the Draft HEU The City’s Housing Element consultant and staff revised the HEU based on comments received during the study session. The revised HEU was submitted to HCD on October 12, 2020, for the mandatory 60-day review period and conditional certification. HCD staff requested revisions to the draft HEU that would be required prior to HCD’s certification. Those revisions were: 1. Revise Program A.10-2 to include the Fair Oaks Mixed-Use and Gateway Mixed- Use zoning districts to reduce constraints on affordable housing production 2. Revise Program F.1-2 to address permit requirements for multi-family residential projects 3. Add a program to revise design review findings to be more objective and predictable 4. Add a program to establish an official process to implement SB 1087 Item 9.a. - Page 3 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE JANUARY 26, 2021 PAGE 4 5. Minor edits and points of clarification Staff incorporated these revisions into a final draft HEU and resubmitted this version to HCD. This final draft is included herein as Attachment 2 and as Exhibit A to the draft resolution. HCD then issued a letter of conditional certification on December 10, 2020 (Attachment 5), confirming that HCD will certify the City’s HEU if it is adopted as shown in Attachment 2. (Note: since receipt of HCD’s conditional certification, two additional minor revisions were made to Attachment 2 following the Planning Commission’s January 5, 2021 hearing on the HEU, as described in more detail below.) The paragraphs below describe the major changes since the Planning Commission reviewed the HEU at the study session. 1. The concern around the absence of policies and programs to address missing middle housing was resolved through the addition of Policy A.15. This policy encourages the development of missing middle housing types through examination and potential changes to the Development Code and design standards. Additionally, Program F.1-4 calls for the adoption of objective design standards to streamline approvals and reduce costs for housing projects of all types. 2. To reduce governmental constraints, HCD requested an expansion of Program A.10-2 to include other mixed-use zoning districts. The original draft program would have required revisions to the Development Code to allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre for 100% residential projects proposed in the Office Mixed-Use zone. This program was revised to include the FOMU and GMU zones and to allow up to 25 dwelling units per acre for 100% residential projects in these zones. As originally proposed in the draft HEU, this program also lowers the permit requirements for multi-family residential projects from a conditional use permit (CUP) to a minor use permit (MUP) with design review from the Architectural Review Committee. These changes makes more land available for higher density projects as a strategy to provide affordable housing units. 3. HCD identified the City’s existing design review findings as a governmental constraint to the production of housing due to their subjectivity. In response to this concern, Program F.1-4 was revised to clarify that objective design standards would replace the existing, subjective design review findings, thereby eliminating the identified constraint. Program F.1-4 was also revised to address comments from the Planning Commission regarding the desire to see accelerated review times for residential projects. Objective design standards may stimulate housing production by reducing costs through shorter review periods and increased predictability throughout the process. By lowering risk and reducing costs that can Item 9.a. - Page 4 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE JANUARY 26, 2021 PAGE 5 be achieved through a streamlined permit process, more housing can be produced at a lower cost. 4. Both the Planning Commission and members of the public requested the addition of a policy that encourages the inclusion of childcare facilities in planned residential projects. Two policies were added in response to those comments. Policy 1.7 encourages the inclusion of childcare facilities for both residential projects and larger commercial and industrial projects. This policy places an emphasis on incorporating childcare facilities in projects with 50 or more units. In addition, Policy I.8 was added to encourage projects and facilities that promote intergenerational uses and activities. 5. Both the Planning Commission and the public expressed concern regarding the reliance on ADUs to meet the City’s RHNA. The draft HEU was revised to reduce the number of ADUs projected during the planning cycle from 350 to 236. This reduction reflects a realistic and attainable number of ADUs that are anticipated over the next eight (8) years based on the number of ADUs permitted the past two years and extrapolated through 2028. Staff then conducted additional analysis to identify additional sites that were added to the land inventory table that were previously unaccounted for. These additional opportunity sites are non-vacant sites and their redevelopment is not likely to result in high density or affordable housing units. Therefore, the number of units that these opportunity sites could produce were added to the above moderate income category. The final revised table identifying the number of units relied upon to meet the City’s RHNA obligations is shown below: Item 9.a. - Page 5 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE JANUARY 26, 2021 PAGE 6 Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On January 5, 2021, staff presented a final draft of the HEU to the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing, requesting a recommendation that the City Council adopt the HEU. The final draft presented to the Planning Commission included responses to comments from the public and Planning Commission at the study session, as well as corrections and clarifications requested by HCD to obtain conditional certification. Public comment received on the day before, and day of, the Planning Commission hearing generated two minor changes to the HEU. The public comment correctly identified an inconsistency between the number of ADUs stated in the quantified objective for Program A.2-1, Table 2-1, and Table 4-5. The projected numbers in the quantified objective and Table 2-1 had not updated when the ADU projection was reduced from 350 to 236. A public comment also questioned whether the public was adequately involved in the HEU process. In response to this concern, Section 1.4, “Public Participation”, was updated to include the efforts made to solicit input from ten local Native American tribes, eleven local non-profit organizations, and awareness of the HEU garnered through the City’s participation with the Regional Housing Action Team and in the Regional Housing Summit. The italicized and underlined text on the pages included as Attachment 6 depict the changes that were made to HEU in response to these comments. These changes have been incorporated into the final HEU included in the draft Resolution. Following consideration of public comment, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the draft as submitted by staff, with the minor changes summarized above, at their meeting on January 5, 2021. Draft minutes of the Planning Commission hearing are included as Attachment 7. Upon adoption by the City Council, the HEU will be submitted to HCD for a final review and certification. HCD has an additional 90 days to review the element and report its findings back to the City. At the conclusion of the 90-day period, if there are no additional comments, HCD will issue a certification letter and the Housing Element will be considered in full compliance with State law. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The HEU requires environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The HEU is a document that establishes goals and policies, but does not result in a physical change to the environment. All development will be required to comply with the City’s existing General Plan, which was fully evaluated in a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is not anticipated that the HEU will create any new or significantly increased impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR, as demonstrated in the EIR addendum. The 2001 General Plan EIR is included as Attachment 8, and the addendum can be found as Attachment 3 and as Exhibit B to the draft Resolution. Item 9.a. - Page 6 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION - CITYWIDE JANUARY 26, 2021 PAGE 7 ADVANTAGES: Adoption of the Housing Element will bring the City into compliance with State housing law. It will also make the City eligible for several housing, community development, and infrastructure funding programs that include housing element compliance as a rating and ranking or threshold requirement. DISADVANTAGES: None identified. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: A notice of public hearing was published in the Tribune and notices mailed to partner agencies on January 15, 2021. The notice was also posted on the City’s website and at City Hall. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Housing Element Final Draft (Exhibit A to the Resolution) 3. Addendum to the EIR (Exhibit B to the Resolution) 4. Minutes from October 6, 2020 Planning Commission meeting 5. HCD Letter dated December 10, 2020 6. Redlined pages of the draft HEU as directed by the Planning Commission on January 5, 2021 7. Draft Minutes from the January 5, 2021 Planning Commission meeting 8. 2001 General Plan EIR Item 9.a. - Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 19-002, ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHEREAS, Section 65302 of the California Government Code requires every city and county in California to adopt a Housing Element as part of its General Plan; and WHEREAS, State law further requires that the City of Arroyo Grande’s (“City”) Housing Element be updated at regular intervals to demonstrate that the jurisdiction is capable of accommodating its “fair share” of the region’s housing needs, known as the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and complies with the current requirements of State law; and WHEREAS, cities and the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County were assigned new RHNAs in 2019 for use in updating their housing elements; and WHEREAS, the City was given a RHNA of 692 housing units for the planning period of 2020-2028, including 170 units of very low income housing, 107 units of low income housing, 124 units of moderate income housing, and 291 units of above moderate housing; and WHEREAS, a study session was held by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2020, to discuss and receive feedback on the City’s draft Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, the City submitted the draft Housing Element Update to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 12, 2020, for review and conditional certification; and WHEREAS, the City received written comments from HCD on November 23, 2020, suggesting further refinements and changes were required to the draft Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the City thereafter resubmitted a revised draft Housing Element Update to HCD; and WHEREAS, the revised draft Housing Element Update was granted conditional certification by HCD on December 10, 2020; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing on the Housing Element Update was held by the Planning Commission on January 5, 2021, at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the Housing Element Update at the public hearing on January 5, 2021; and ATTACHMENT 1 Item 9.a. - Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the duly noticed public hearing held before it on January 26, 2021, and the information contained in the Housing Element Update, staff report, and the administrative record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that an addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is appropriate for the reasons set forth in the addendum presented to the City Council at its meeting held on January 26, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande (i) adopts the Housing Element Update attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and directs staff to submit the Housing Element Update to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for final review and certification; (ii) adopts General Plan Amendment No. 19-002; and (iii) and considers, relies upon and adopts the findings set forth in the addendum to the General Plan EIR attached hereto as “Exhibit B” in compliance with CEQA. On motion of Council Member ________, seconded by Council Member_______, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 26th day of January 2021. Item 9.a. - Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 _______________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________________ ANNAMARIE PORTER, INTERIM CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ___________________________________ WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FROM: __________________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Item 9.a. - Page 10 JANUARY 2021 FINAL DRAFT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 2020-2028 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE EXHIBIT AATTACHMENT 2 Item 9.a. - Page 11 Item 9.a. - Page 12 JANUARY 2021 FINAL DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO www.placeworks.com Prepared By: P.O. Box 1316 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 t 805.457.5557 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 2020-2028 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Item 9.a. - Page 13 Item 9.a. - Page 14 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element i Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO CITY GENERAL PLAN ............................................................................................................... 2 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2 – GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 13 2.1 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS ..................................................................................... 13 2.2 SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 33 CHAPTER 3 – BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 35 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 35 3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 38 3.3 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................................... 45 3.4 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ............................................................................................................................... 49 3.5 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS GROUPS .................................................................................................................. 53 3.6 AT-RISK HOUSING UNITS ................................................................................................................................. 60 CHAPTER 4 - HOUSING RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 63 4.1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................... 63 4.2 2020–2028 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION ..................................................................................... 64 4.3 LAND AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................................................ 66 4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 75 4.5 FINANCIAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 77 4.6 ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 80 CHAPTER 5 – HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................................... 83 5.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................................... 83 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND ENERGY CONSERVATION .......................................................................... 105 5.3 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................ 109 CHAPTER 6 - REGIONAL VISION FOR HOUSING .................................................................................................... 111 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................................... 111 ALIGNMENT WITH REGIONAL COMPACT............................................................................................................... 111 POLICIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 112 MOVING FORWARD .......................................................................................................................................... 112 CHAPTER 7 – REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT .................................................................................. 113 APPENDIX ELIGIBILITY LIST Item 9.a. - Page 15 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element ii List of Tables TABLE 2-1 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES BY INCOME GROUP ........................................................................................ 33 TABLE 3-1 TRENDS IN POPULATION GROWTH ............................................................................................................ 38 TABLE 3-2 POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS...................................................................................................... 38 TABLE 3-3 TRENDS IN POPULATION AGE .................................................................................................................... 39 TABLE 3-5 TRENDS IN HOUSEHOLD GROWTH ............................................................................................................. 40 TABLE 3-6 HOUSEHOLD TENURE .................................................................................................................................. 41 TABLE 3-7 TRENDS IN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ............................................................................................................. 42 TABLE 3-8 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................... 42 TABLE 3-9 SAN LUIS OBISPO-PASO ROBLES-ARROYO GRANDE METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA PROJECTIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 43 TABLE 3-10 LARGEST EMPLOYERS ............................................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 3-11 INDUSTRY PROFILE.................................................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 3-12 COMMUTE PATTERNS ............................................................................................................................... 45 TABLE 3-13 TRENDS IN HOUSING TYPE ....................................................................................................................... 45 TABLE 3-14 VACANT UNITS BY TYPE, 2017 ................................................................................................................. 46 TABLE 3-15 VACANCY RATES ..................................................................................................................................... 47 TABLE 3-16 OVERCROWDING BY TENURE .................................................................................................................. 47 TABLE 3-17 YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT ............................................................................................................................ 48 TABLE 3-18 MARKET RENTAL RATES BY UNIT TYPE ...................................................................................................... 50 TABLE 3-19 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY .......................................................................... 51 TABLE 3-20 TOTAL HOUSEHOLD OVERPAYMENT BY INCOME, 2015 ........................................................................ 52 TABLE 3-21 SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS .............................................................................................................................. 53 TABLE 3-22 HOUSING PROBLEMS FOR FEMALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................. 54 TABLE 3-23 TENURE BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE ................................................................................................................... 54 TABLE 3-24 HOUSING PROBLEMS FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................... 55 TABLE 3-25 PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY BY DISABILITY TYPE ................................................................................... 56 TABLE 3-26 PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS, 2013-2017 ...................................................... 57 TABLE 3-27 DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS ................................................................................................ 58 TABLE 3-28 DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED RESIDENTS BY RESIDENCE TYPE ............................................................. 59 TABLE 3-29 HOMELESSNESS, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY .......................................................................................... 60 TABLE 3-30 INVENTORY OF ASSISTED UNITS .............................................................................................................. 60 TABLE 4-1 INCOME GROUP ........................................................................................................................................ 63 TABLE 4-2 HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION BY INCOME CATEGORY.......................................................................... 64 TABLE 4-3 INCOME LIMITS, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ...................................................................................... 64 TABLE 4-4 CITY SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEED 2019–2028 .......................................................................... 65 TABLE 4-5 REMAINING RHNA, 2019–2028 ................................................................................................................. 66 TABLE 4-6 LAND INVENTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 69 TABLE 4-7 CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY – ACRE-FEET PER YEAR (AFY) .............................................. 75 TABLE 5-1 URBAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE .......................................................................... 84 TABLE 5-2 HOUSING TYPES PERMITTED BY ZONING DISTRICT – RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT ............................. 86 TABLE 5-3 HOUSING TYPES PERMITTED BY ZONING DISTRICT – MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT ............................... 87 TABLE 5-4 RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS............................... 89 TABLE 5-5 RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MULTIPLE-FAMILY AND OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS ....... 90 TABLE 5-6 RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS ...................................... 90 TABLE 5-8 SCHEDULE OF TYPICAL FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 97 TABLE 5-9 SCHEDULE OF TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ........................ 98 TABLE 5-10 PROPORTION OF FEE IN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT COST FOR A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 98 TABLE 5-11 PERMIT PROCESSING TIMELINE ............................................................................................................... 99 TABLE 5-12 RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 101 TABLE 5-13 CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES .......................................................... 103 TABLE 5-14 APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS ................................................................................................................... 110 TABLE 6-1 REVIEW OF 2014-2019 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS ........................................................................ 114 Item 9.a. - Page 16 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element iii List of Figures FIGURE 3-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 3-2 SOUTH COUNTY LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 3-3 CHANGE IN POPULATION AGE, 2010 TO 2017 ...................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 3-4 MEDIAN HOME PRICES TREND, ARROYO GRANDE AND COUNTY ....................................................... 50 FIGURE 4-1 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES INVENTORY MAP ................................................................................... 61 Item 9.a. - Page 17 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element iv This page intentionally left blank. Item 9.a. - Page 18 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 1 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and provide: (a) An analysis of existing and projected housing needs; (b) an evaluation of housing constraints, (c) a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives and financial resources; and (d) scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The State Legislature, in its adoption of planning law, has set forth the following policies toward the provision of housing: • The availability of housing is of vital importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farm workers, is a priority of the highest order. • The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the needs of Californians of all economic levels. • The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires the cooperation of all levels of government. • Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. • The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs. This document is intended to comply with Article 10.6 (as amended) of State Planning Law and to meet the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines for the implementation of Article 10.6. This document replaces the Housing Element adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande on March 22, 2016. The Housing Element planning period will begin December 31, 2020, and will last through December 31, 2028. This Housing Element includes all the following information, as required by state law: • Specific goals, policies, and measurable programs. • Information about the existing housing stock, covering such items as the amount, type, cost, tenure, and structural condition of the units. Other areas addressed include overcrowding and the needs of special subgroups of the population. • An analysis of potential barriers to housing production, including both governmental and non-governmental constraints. • Information about energy conservation opportunities for housing. • A summary of the past housing-related efforts by the City and an analysis of their success or failure. Item 9.a. - Page 19 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 2 1.2 Relationship to City General Plan Housing elements are one of eight elements of the General Plan that every California city and county is required by state law to prepare. Under state law, a General Plan must function as an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of values. The housing, land use, and circulation elements form the heart of a community strategy to promote orderly growth and provide housing for all economic segments. State law is very specific about the content of housing elements. The housing element is also the only part of the general plan that is subject to mandatory deadlines for periodic updates that include a review and “certification” by HCD. General Plan Consistency The City’s Land Use Element of the 2001 General Plan designates the sites noted in this Housing Element for residential purposes at densities consistent with the goals of providing housing affordable to a wide range of incomes. The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan and is consistent with the policy direction in the plan. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist in Arroyo Grande’s sphere of influence, so no updates to the General Plan are needed to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 244. As portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure internal consistency. 1.3 Organization of Housing Element As noted previously, the intent of this Housing Element update is to meet the statutory requirements of state housing law. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the laws and its relationship to the General Plan. Chapter 2 is the heart of the document, setting forth all the goals, policies, programs, and objectives for housing in Arroyo Grande. Chapter 3 describes relevant demographics concerning housing needs and issues in the City, while Chapter 4 discusses regional housing needs and provides an overview of the City’s land availability and public services. Chapter 5 analyzes the constraints to housing development and Chapter 6 sets forth a set of regional goals and policies developed in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, and all seven incorporated cities in the County. Chapter 7 reviews the past housing efforts as proposed in the 2014–2019 Housing Element. 1.4 Public Participation The California Government Code states that “the local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” While opportunities to connect with the community are more limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City has participated in the Regional Housing Action Team and the Regional Housing Summit, conducted a study session with the Planning Commission and made the draft housing element available for public review on the City’s website. The City also notified 10 Native American tribes about the initiation of the Housing Element Update in Spring 2020 and invited them to comment on the process and document. The Regional Housing Action Team and Regional Compact efforts are described in Chapter 6. Item 9.a. - Page 20 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 3 City staff presented along with the other jurisdictions in the county at the annual Housing Summit held online on September 10, 2020. The summit was organized by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. This year’s online event was split into multiple days. The September 10th event was dedicated to the regional housing planning efforts underway by the Regional Housing Action Team including the regional portion of each jurisdiction’s housing element. Each city and the county presented about their housing element and housing planning efforts and responded to questions from the moderator and participants. Public Draft Housing Element The Draft Housing Element was published on the City of Arroyo Grande website and made available for public comment on September 21, 2020. The City notified key stakeholders via email, as listed in Appendix A. The City also notified these stakeholders about the October 6th study session to give them the opportunity to participate. Study Session The City held a virtual public study session with the Planning Commission to solicit input on October 6, 2020. The format for this meeting was a presentation with an overview of the 6th-round Housing Element update process and solicited input from the members of the Commission and meeting attendees on the public review draft. Five Planning Commissioners, one City Councilmember, and at least three members of the public attended the meeting. City staff and the City’s consultant gave an introductory presentation and then a discussion was held with those at the session. There were no requests for translation services at the meeting. The following is a summary of the comments and questions received at the study session: • The draft housing element is detailed but exceeds the City’s ability to complete all identified tasks due to staff workload limits. Consider looking into other resources that could be helpful to City staff. • Are the goals in the goals, policies, and programs section in order of importance or priority for implementation? • Are Policy A.1 and the programs that go with it the only zoning changes identified in the housing element? • Are there certain areas in the City’s sphere of influence where Program D.1-1 would aim to conduct specific plans? • Does the state enforce the building of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and if so, what they do to enforce? • A commenter asked about a program that was removed from the existing housing element regarding attainable housing and whether that type of housing is different from affordable housing? • The high density, low-income housing sites proposed across the city in the sites inventory should be more well-distributed and spread across the city. • There was a question about Policy A.2 regarding manufactured homes and whether allowing manufactured homes in the way the policy calls for would be required? • The City appears to promote rather than just allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the draft housing element. Item 9.a. - Page 21 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 4 • How does Policy G.2 actually apply in terms of consistency with state law? City staff talked about the discretion on affordable housing projects being more limited than it was historically because of state law. • Child care facilities should be supported in the housing element. • Multi-family housing as proposed is supported. • The income levels need to be more clearly defined in Chapter 4 in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. • Program A.1-3 from the previous housing element should be maintained to help distribute sites and housing opportunities equally. • Population trends displayed in the draft housing element are surprising and concerning, especially related to age groups that have decreased in number in recent years. • The draft housing element should not rely as heavily on ADUs to meet the RHNA. • ADUs don’t provide ownership opportunities, so these units do not serve all segments of the population. • The City should adjust zoning to address missing middle housing by allowing housing types like cottage homes and changing development standards. • The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates a significant portion of land for single- family uses which is inconsistent with the draft housing element’s assertion that the element has goals consistent with providing housing affordable to a wide range of incomes. • The private market controls housing development, and affordable housing is almost exclusively developed by nonprofits. The City should incentivize the private sector to build affordable housing and missing middle housing. • ADUs are too small for many families, and the community needs more family-sized housing in the city. • The time that goes into creating the housing element does not result in enough affordable housing. • Modest growth in the city will likely continue, which is not inconsistent with the goal to maintain community character. • Construction cost estimates in the public draft housing element ($134 per square feet) seem lower than reality. • Comments were supportive of the regional chapter of the draft housing element and the regional housing planning efforts. Planning Commissioners and elected officials should be included in regional housing planning efforts. Written Input Received on Draft Housing Element In addition to feedback received at the study session, five organizations or members of the public also submitted comment letters before the meeting. Some of those who wrote letters also commented during the study session. Some of their comments from the letters maybe be included under the summary of input during the study session above. Those comments are summarized below: • Access to affordable and quality child care should be supported in the housing element through the following recommendations: o Policies in Goal A, Goal B, and Goal I of the existing housing element should include language to support the provision of affordable on-site child care facilities. The housing element should acknowledge that single-parent and female-headed households contribute a higher percentage of their income to housing costs, and access to affordable and convenient child care is paramount. Item 9.a. - Page 22 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 5 o Policies in Goal A, Goal B, and Goal I of the existing housing element should promote intergenerational facilities – such as senior centers co-located near or with child care centers. o The housing element update should address the critical need to maximize outdoor spaces, including those in proximity for outdoor learning environments and play for a range of age groups. • Affordable housing should be defined more clearly in the housing element. • Missing middle housing is needed in Arroyo Grande and should be provided with specific goals and priorities in the housing element update in the following ways: o The City’s Land Use Element designates sites noted in the existing housing element for residential purposes. While the existing housing element states that the designated sites are a range of densities, consistent with the goals of providing affordable housing, most of the residential land is zoned for single family uses. Single family uses will never meet that goal. o The City cannot enable and encourage multi-family uses without updating zoning, given that the majority of the city’s land is currently zoned for single family uses. There are few locations where duplexes and triplexes wouldn’t be appropriate. o Given population trends shown in the draft housing element, the city appears to be losing young families. None of the median salaries in the city are over $100,000. We are building a city where the options are not feasible or desirable for young families. o Allow missing middle housing by permitting duplexes and triplexes by right throughout existing single-family-zoned neighborhoods. • ADUs projections make up the majority of the difference in all housing groups, and it is unlikely that these housing groups will be met. • Potential ADUs do not provide potential homeownership and 40 percent of housing will not be available to people who don’t have a family member or friend who can rent them their ADU. This is not an equitable or scalable scenario. • Potential housing is contained in a handful of large, high-density projects. These projects are slow to permit and build and encounter a lot of community resistance. It is not reasonable to put them in the land inventory. • The City should not hold meetings about this topic when people cannot attend the meeting in person. • We should not try to meet the needs of future residents. We should meet the needs of current residents and keep it affordable. If we attract outsiders, this will increase housing costs until we are squeezed out to accommodate all who want to live here. • Not requiring off-street parking for all who live in these units is wrong. • Where will all the water come from for these new residences? We need to ensure adequate infrastructure is in place. • Do not allow manufactured housing on legal parcels in all residential zoning districts because it compromises community character in single-family residential areas. • Most low-income housing sites in the sites inventory are in one area of Arroyo Grande, and it should not be located all in one place. Streets in this area would be congested with a high concentration of new residents. Schools would not be prepared to handle the heightened enrollment generated by the new construction. • Support Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo’s (HASLO) proposed large low-income development on the vacant lot on the corner of Oak Park and El Camino Real, but the Item 9.a. - Page 23 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 6 project should be reduced in scale to an appropriate housing density for the following reasons: o This project provides 50 percent of the low-income housing needed to meet the RHNA through 2028. All other low-income housing sites are on the other side of Highway 101. o NYU Furman Center argues that dispersed low-income housing better matches existing character, faces less community opposition, and integrates tenants into the existing housing. o This is the only project that has a “Realistic Dwelling Unit” number higher than the maximum. o The project will increase traffic flow on the nearby arterial corridor and in/around the neighborhood. Some of these nearby intersections have existing safety concerns that need to be addressed. o Parking would be an issue. Existing street conditions and sizes cannot support the new development. There is an existing lack of street parking. o Building heights for this size of project would block views on existing properties. Residential building heights should be limited to two stories. o Oak trees on the project site contribute to the character and aesthetic of the neighborhood and should be protected. The existing oak trees would scale and screen new development. • The draft housing element should include housing opportunities for all income categories east and north of Highway 101, rather than concentrating them in only half of the city. • The City did not implement Program A.1-3 in the 2014-2019 Housing Element, which would have encouraged high-density, low-income housing east of Highway 101. • The draft housing element should be revised to assume housing density in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District is 20 units per acre. • Opportunities for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income housing should be analyzed in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District, Village Mixed Use zone east of Highway 101, and Village Core Downtown zone east of Highway 101. • The City should not rely on a single project to provide such a high percentage of the anticipated future community housing resources. It will disproportionately impact adjacent residents and businesses. • Revise Policy A.5 to encourage residential uses in mixed-use and village core districts to promote uniform spatial distribution of low-income housing. • Changing the zoning at 700 Oak Park to by-right residential will make it difficult for the City to comply with Policy G.2. • Given population trends, the City should attract and retain younger residents and families in part with a first-time homebuyer program. Response to Input Received on Draft Housing Element Edits to the public draft housing element were made after the October 6th study session prior to submittal to HCD for review. Some of the comments summarized above were addressed by these revisions as noted below. • The draft housing element is detailed but exceeds the City’s ability to complete all identified tasks due to staff workload limits. Consider looking into other resources that could be helpful to City staff. Item 9.a. - Page 24 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 7 o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions made in draft in response to this comment. • Are the goals in the goals in the goals, policies, and programs section in order of importance or priority for implementation? o Response: No, they are not in order of priority. • Are Policy A.1 and the programs that go with it the only zoning changes identified in the housing element? o Response: No, there are other programs in Chapter 2 that call for changes to the Development Code/zoning ordinance. • Are there certain areas in the City’s sphere of influence where Program D.1-1 would aim to conduct specific plans? o Response: No, the City doesn’t have certain areas in mind. The sphere of influence area is relatively small, so the intent of this program is to make sure residential is a priority when these areas are planned and annexed. • Does the state enforce the building of the RHNA and if so, what they do to enforce? o Response: The state has the statutory authority to enforce certain things related to the RHNA including maintenance of enough sites to address the RHNA by the City. Historically, the state has not penalized local jurisdictions for failing to develop enough housing units to meet the RHNA by the end of the housing element planning period. • A commenter asked about a program that was removed from the existing housing element regarding attainable housing and whether that type of housing is different from affordable housing. o Response: Attainable housing and affordable housing are not the same thing. Attainable housing is for higher incomes than affordable housing and is more consistent with the state’s moderate income category. As used in this housing element affordable housing refers to the extremely low, very low and low income categories. • The high density, low-income housing sites proposed across the city in the sites inventory should be more well-distributed and spread across the city. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Additional sites were added to Table 4-6 in the draft, some of which may be suitable for lower income housing. • There was a question about Policy A.2 regarding manufactured homes and whether allowing manufactured homes in the way the policy calls for would be required? o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. Policy A.2 was included in the existing Housing Element and is being carried forward into this cycle’s element. • The City appears to promote rather than just allow ADUs in the draft housing element. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • How does Policy G.2 actually apply in terms of consistency with state law? City staff talked about the discretion on affordable housing projects being more limited than it was historically because of state law. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Program F.1-4 has been added to this draft to address streamlining of review of affordable housing projects. The program will also address making standards for this type of project more objective. • Child care facilities should be supported in the housing element. Item 9.a. - Page 25 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 8 o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Policies I.7 and I.8 were added in response to this and other comments. • Multi-family housing as proposed is supported. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • The income levels need to be more clearly defined in Chapter 4 in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Tables 4-2 and 4-3 and accompanying text was revised to address this comment. • Program A.1-3 from the previous housing element should be maintained to help distribute sites and housing opportunities equally. o Response: This program has been continued in the draft. • Population trends displayed in the draft housing element are surprising and concerning, especially related to age groups that have decreased in number in recent years. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • The draft housing element should not rely as heavily on ADUs to meet the RHNA. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5. • ADUs don’t provide ownership opportunities, so these units do not serve all segments of the population. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5 and more sites for housing were added to Table 4-6. • The City should adjust zoning to address missing middle housing by allowing housing types like cottage homes and changing development standards. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Policy A.15 was added to address this and other comments regarding missing middle housing. • The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates a significant portion of land for single- family uses which is inconsistent with the draft housing element’s assertion that the element has goals consistent with providing housing affordable to a wide range of incomes. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • The private market controls housing development, and affordable housing is almost exclusively developed by nonprofits. The City should incentivize the private sector to build affordable housing and missing middle housing. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment, except to the extent that greater incentivization occurs through streamlined review processes and new Program F.1-4. • ADUs are too small for many families, and the community needs more family-sized housing in the city. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5 and more sites for housing were added to Table 4-6. • The time that goes into creating the housing element does not result in enough affordable housing. o Response: Comment noted. • Modest growth in the city will likely continue, which is not inconsistent with the goal to maintain community character. Item 9.a. - Page 26 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 9 o Response: Comment noted. • Construction cost estimates in the public draft housing element ($134 per square foot) seem lower than reality. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The cost per square foot was increased to $140/square foot based on City records from a recent housing development project. • Comments were supportive of the regional chapter of the draft housing element and the regional housing planning efforts. Planning Commissioners and elected officials should be included in regional housing planning efforts. o Response: Comment noted. • Access to affordable and quality child care should be supported in the housing element through the following recommendations: o Policies in Goal A, Goal B, and Goal I of the existing housing element should include language to support the provision of affordable on-site child care facilities. The housing element should acknowledge that single-parent and female-headed households contribute a higher percentage of their income to housing costs, and access to affordable and convenient child care is paramount. o Policies in Goal A, Goal B, and Goal I of the existing housing element should promote intergenerational facilities – such as senior centers co-located near or with child care centers. o The housing element update should address the critical need to maximize outdoor spaces, including those in proximity for outdoor learning environments and play for a range of age groups. o Revisions to draft in response to these comments: Policies I.7 and I.8 were added in response to these and other comments. • Affordable housing should be defined more clearly in the housing element. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Tables 4-2 and 4-3 were revised. • Missing middle housing is needed in Arroyo Grande and should be provided with specific goals and priorities in the housing element update in the following ways: o The City’s Land Use Element designates sites noted in the existing housing element for residential purposes. While the existing housing element states that the designated sites are a range of densities, consistent with the goals of providing affordable housing, most of the residential land is zoned for single family uses. Single family uses will never meet that goal. o The City cannot enable and encourage multi-family uses without updating zoning, given that the majority of the city’s land is currently zoned for single family uses. There are few locations where duplexes and triplexes wouldn’t be appropriate. o Given population trends shown in the draft housing element, the city appears to be losing young families. None of the median salaries in the city are over $100,000. We are building a city where the options are not feasible or desirable for young families. o Allow missing middle housing by permitting duplexes and triplexes by right throughout existing single-family-zoned neighborhoods. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Policy A.15 was added to address this and other comments regarding missing middle housing. Some missing middle housing types like twin homes or duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes are already allowed in the single-family zoning district under the City’s Development Code. Item 9.a. - Page 27 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 10 • ADUs projections make up the majority of the difference in all housing groups, and it is unlikely that these housing groups will be met. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5 and more sites for housing were added to Table 4-6. • Potential ADUs do not provide potential homeownership and 40 percent of housing will not be available to people who don’t have a family member or friend who can rent them their ADU. This is not an equitable or scalable scenario. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: The number of ADUs projected was reduced from 350 to 236 in Table 4-5 and more sites for housing were added to Table 4-6. The reference to 40 percent of ADUs being rented to family and friends is not specific to ADUs in Arroyo Grande in terms of what is available. This percentage is cited on page 68 of this draft as part of the basis for affordability assumptions for ADUs in combination the countywide ADU market study that collected rents for ADUs and concluded that there are affordable ADUs for rent in Arroyo Grande. There was no conclusion that 40 percent of ADUs in the City are rented only to family and friends. • Potential housing is contained in a handful of large, high-density projects. These projects are slow to permit and build and encounter a lot of community resistance. It is not reasonable to put them in the land inventory. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • The City should not hold meetings about this topic when people cannot attend the meeting in person. o Response: This meeting was noticed, and the community had the opportunity to submit written comments or call in to the virtual meeting to provide live verbal comments. • We should not try to meet the needs of future residents. We should meet the needs of current residents and keep it affordable. If we attract outsiders, this will increase housing costs until we are squeezed out to accommodate all who want to live here. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • Not requiring off-street parking for all who live in these units is wrong. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • Where will all the water come from for these new residences? We need to ensure adequate infrastructure is in place. o Response: Water availability is discussed on page 76 of this draft. • Do not allow manufactured housing on legal parcels in all residential zoning districts because it compromises community character in single-family residential areas. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • Most low-income housing sites in the sites inventory are in one area of Arroyo Grande, and it should not be located all in one place. Streets in this area would be congested with a high concentration of new residents. Schools would not be prepared to handle the heightened enrollment generated by the new construction. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Additional sites were added to Table 4-6 in the draft, some may be suitable for lower income housing. Item 9.a. - Page 28 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 11 • Support HASLO’s proposed large low-income development on the vacant lot on the corner of Oak Park and El Camino Real, but the project should be reduced in scale to an appropriate housing density for the following reasons: o This project provides 50 percent of the low-income housing needed to meet the RHNA through 2028. All other low-income housing sites are on the other side of Highway 101. o NYU Furman Center argues that dispersed low-income housing better matches existing character, faces less community opposition, and integrates tenants into the existing housing. o This is the only project that has a “Realistic Dwelling Unit” number higher than the maximum. o The project will increase traffic flow on the nearby arterial corridor and in/around the neighborhood. Some of these nearby intersections have existing safety concerns that need to be addressed. o Parking would be an issue. Existing street conditions and sizes cannot support the new development. There is an existing lack of street parking. o Building heights for this size of project would block views on existing properties. Residential building heights should be limited to two stories. o Oak trees on the project site contribute to the character and aesthetic of the neighborhood and should be protected. The existing oak trees would scale and screen new development. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • The draft housing element should include housing opportunities for all income categories east and north of Highway 101, rather than concentrating them in only half of the city. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Additional sites were added to Table 4-6 in the draft, some of which may be suitable for lower income housing. • The City did not implement Program A.1-3 in the 2014-2019 Housing Element, which would have encouraged high-density, low-income housing east of Highway 101. o Response: This program has been continued in the draft. • The draft housing element should be revised to assume housing density in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District is 20 units per acre. o Response: See response to previous comment. • Opportunities for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income housing should be analyzed in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District, Village Mixed Use zone east of Highway 101, and Village Core Downtown zone east of Highway 101. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • The City should not rely on a single project to provide such a high percentage of the anticipated future community housing resources. It will disproportionately impact adjacent residents and businesses. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: Additional sites were added to Table 4-6 in the draft, some of which may be suitable for lower income housing. • Revise Policy A.5 to encourage residential uses in mixed-use and village core districts to promote uniform spatial distribution of low-income housing. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. Item 9.a. - Page 29 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 12 • Changing the zoning at 700 Oak Park to by-right residential will make it difficult for the City to comply with Policy G.2. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. • Given population trends, the City should attract and retain younger residents and families in part with a first-time homebuyer program. o Revisions to draft in response to this comment: No revisions were made in response to this comment. Additional Written Input Received One comment letter on the housing element was received after the draft was submitted to HCD for their 60-day review. The letter was from the San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments. They had a couple comments in support of actions proposed in the draft housing element. They also asked what additional outreach was occurring on the housing element. Item 9.a. - Page 30 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 13 CHAPTER 2 – GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 2.1 Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs State law requires that the Housing Element contain a “statement of the community’s goals, policies, programs and quantified objectives relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.” This chapter describes the proposed goals, policies, and programs of the Housing Element for the City of Arroyo Grande. Goals refer to general statements of purpose and indicate a direction the City will take with respect to the identified housing problems. Policies are statements of the City’s intent regarding the various housing issues identified and provide a link between the goals and the programs. Programs are steps to be taken to implement the policies and achieve the quantified objectives. Quantified Objectives refer to the number of units that are expected or estimated to be constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated during the time frame of the Housing Element, December 31, 2020, to December 31, 2028 (not all programs have quantified objectives). Goal A – Housing for All Income Groups within the Community. Provide a continuing supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of existing and future Arroyo Grande residents in all income categories. Policies: A.1. The City shall adopt policies, programs, and procedures to attempt to meet the present and future needs of residents of the City, and to aim at providing the fair-share regional housing need allocated for each income classification, within identified governmental, market, economic, and natural constraints. A.2. The City shall continue to use the following incentives for the production of affordable housing: (a) allowing accessory dwelling units under specified criteria; (b) allowing manufactured housing on legal parcels in all residential zoning districts; (c) allowing density bonuses for very low- and low-income housing, senior housing projects, and any other project types called for under state law. A.3. The City shall give priority to processing housing projects that provide for affordable housing, and lower development impact fees shall be charged as an incentive for low, very low, and extremely low-income housing. A.4. The City shall establish minimum residential densities that are no lower than 75 percent of the maximum densities allowed in each multifamily residential zoning district, with exceptions made for properties with significant environmental constraints. A.5. The City shall encourage housing compatible with commercial and office uses and promote “mixed-use” and “village core” zoning districts to facilitate integration of residential uses into such areas. Item 9.a. - Page 31 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 14 A.6. Where circumstances warrant, the City will work with mobile home owners to relocate mobile homes if the City seeks to modify a portion or all of a mobile home park for economic development purposes. A.7. The City will continue to maintain a zoning district for mobile home and manufactured home park uses. A.8. The City may annex land on the urban edge to promote orderly growth and the preservation of open space. A.9. The City shall continue to enable and encourage multiple-family, rental apartments, senior, mobile home, and special needs housing in appropriate locations and densities. These multiple-family residential alternative housing types tend to be more affordable than prevailing single-family residential low- and medium-density developments. A.10. The City shall review and revise its development regulations, standards, and procedures to encourage increased housing supply, as needed. A.11. The City shall continue to use and expand the density bonus program to encourage affordable housing supply. A.12. The City shall continue to maintain a system to inventory vacant and underutilized land. A.13. The City shall pursue adequate water sources and conservation programs to accommodate projected residential development. A.14. The City shall pursue program assistance for first-time home buyers. A.15. The City shall encourage the development of "missing middle" housing, including an evaluation of the zoning, design standards, and policies necessary to enable the types of housing that best serve "missing middle" households. Programs: A.1-1. To comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 1397, the Development Code shall be amended to allow Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 077-011-010, 077-204-028, 077-211-022, and 077-221-031 in the land inventory in this sixth-round Housing Element to be developed for residential use by-right, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2(c). This zoning change is necessary because parcel 077-011-010 which is vacant was included in the City’s fourth- and fifth-round Housing Elements and has not yet developed for housing and the other three parcels which are non-vacant were included in the City’s fifth round Housing Element. This by-right (without discretionary review) requirement will only apply to housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower- income households. The application of the requirement should not be used to further constrain the development of housing. As such, housing developments that do not contain the requisite 20 percent would still be allowed to be developed according to the underlying (base) zoning. These parcels are currently zoned Office Mixed-Use (OMU) and Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FOMU) which require a Use Permit for multifamily housing development. The City shall modify the Development Code to reflect the by-right Item 9.a. - Page 32 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 15 provisions described in this program within three years of the beginning of the sixth-cycle Housing Element planning period, which is December 31, 2023. Responsible agency/department: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Timeframe: Amend zoning by December 31, 2023 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment Quantified Objective: 98 lower income units on these parcels and the other parcels that the parcel at 700 Oak Park Boulevard (APN 077-011-010) is combined with. A.1-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to revise the requirements for the Traffic Way Mixed-Use District to remove the limitation of only live-work residential uses. A mix of residential use types shall be allowed consistent with all the mixed-use zoning districts (except the Industrial Mixed-Use District). The Development Code shall also be amended to allow residential projects at densities up to 20 units per acre in the Traffic Way Mixed- Use District. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within three years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment Quantified Objective: 10 moderate-income units, 10 above-moderate-income units A.1-3. To mitigate the loss of affordable housing units, new housing developments shall be required to replace affordable housing units lost due to new development. In accordance with 65583.2 subdivision (g), the City also will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (c)(3) on sites identified in the sites inventory when any new development (residential, mixed-use or non- residential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower- income households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement applies to: • Non-vacant sites • Vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing, the replacement requirement will be implemented immediately and applied as applications on identified sites are received and processed, 2020–2028 Funding Source: General Fund A.2-1. The City shall continue to encourage and publicize on the City’s website the accessory dwelling program to increase public awareness, including a flowchart to aid in the application process. The City will also amend the accessory dwelling unit regulations in the Development Code for consistency with updates to state law. In addition, as part of the Item 9.a. - Page 33 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 16 ordinance update, the City will evaluate ADU requirements related to off-street parking, lot coverage and open space, setbacks, maximum size and height and passageways, entrances and orientation; and adjust them as feasible to be more permissive than what is required by state law. The City will evaluate and adopt pre-approved accessory dwelling unit plans to streamline the approval process and lower development costs for applicants. Additional outreach regarding ADUs and the pre-approved plans will be conducted, including the steps detailed in the REAP (AB 101) grant work program. This outreach will include flyers, promotional materials and other outreach to further spread the word about ADUs and ADU-related resources in Arroyo Grande. The City will monitor ADU permitting throughout the planning period to track whether permits are keeping up with the ADUs anticipated in the housing element, including affordability. The City will monitor the number and affordability of ADUs every two years and include additional actions as appropriate including conducting additional outreach if ADU permits are not keeping up with numbers anticipated in the housing element after 2 years and every 2 years thereafter. The outreach will include regular announcements (at least once a month) about options to build ADUs and ADU resources at Planning Commission and City Council meetings and prominent placement of ADU information and the process to permit them on the City’s website. If ADUs are not occurring consistent with assumptions in the element, the City will amend and submit the housing element to HCD to identify adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Amend Development Code by May 31, 2021 and if needed later in the planning period to address any new updates to state law, and enforce state law until the zoning is updated. Assess ADU approval progress by the end of 2022 and every two years thereafter, and conduct additional outreach and amend the housing element after that if ADU numbers are not tracking with projections in Chapter 4 of the Housing Element. Funding: General Fund, SB 2 funds, and AB 101 funds Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is continued consistent production of accessory dwelling units as an affordable housing alternative. Quantified Objective: 15 low income and 14-15 moderate income units/year during the planning period. Total of 120 low-income and 116 moderate income units for the planning period. A.2-2. To further encourage ADU creation, the City shall establish an amnesty program in compliance with Senate Bill 13 to facilitate the process of bringing unpermitted ADUs into compliance with local regulations including the building code by owners of this type of unit. Senate Bill 13 requires under certain circumstances specified by state law, that enforcement of violations related to unpermitted ADUs be delayed for 5 years if correcting the violations are not necessary to protect health and safety. The City program would consider reductions in fees associated with necessary upgrades to bring the unit up to code along with providing information and staff assistance with the steps in the process to bring the unit up to code. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Develop and put amnesty program into place by May 31, 2022. Funding: General Fund Item 9.a. - Page 34 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 17 Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is adding accessory dwelling units to the City’s housing stock as unpermitted units become legal. Quantified Objective: See quantified objectives under Program A.2-1. A.3-1. The City shall amend the Municipal Code to encourage the development of affordable housing projects, including expedited permitting, providing financial assistance through the City’s In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund, requiring lot consolidation, and providing greater flexibility in development standards. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within five years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund and SB 2 funds Expected Outcome: Additional affordable units Quantified Objective: Five very low-income and five low-income units A.3-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to provide additional incentives specifically for extremely low-income housing projects. Incentives may include flexible standards for on- and off-site improvements, such as reduced parking requirements, reduced curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements; reduced or deferred water and/or sewer connection fees; development review and permit streamlining procedures; or financial incentives and assistance. Responsible agency/department: City Manager, Public Works, and Community Development Timeframe: Amend Development Code by 2022 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Draft program or ordinance to incentivize and/or streamline permitting and procedures for extremely low-income housing developments Quantified Objective: Two extremely low-income units A.3-3. The City shall consider a program to waive, reduce or defer impact fees for ADUs and projects with deed-restricted affordable units. Responsible agency/department: City Manager, Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council Timeframe: Amend Fees by December 31, 2021 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Consider and potentially establish a fee waiver or reduction for ADUs and affordable units Quantified Objective: See quantified objectives under Program A.2-1 A.10-1. To facilitate affordable housing, the City shall comply with State Density Bonus Law. The City shall update Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with current state density bonus law. The City will continue to update Chapter 16.82 on an ongoing basis to comply with any future updates to State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.), as well as evaluate proposed Development Code amendments to assess whether they pose any constraints to developer utilization of density bonuses. Item 9.a. - Page 35 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 18 Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Amend Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with Government Code Section 65915 et seq. – Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption; Assess Development Code Amendments - Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: City-initiated Development Code amendments Quantified Objective: 20 lower-income units A.10-2. To encourage higher densities and reduce constraints to multifamily housing production, the City shall amend the Development Code to allow densities up to 20 du/ac in the OMU District and up to 25 du/ac in the FOMU and GMU districts for 100% multifamily housing projects with a Minor-Use Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural Review Committee. Mixed-use projects will continue to have a maximum allowed density of 20 du/ac in OMU and 25 du/ac in FOMU and GMU. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Remove barrier to construct affordable housing A.12-1. The City shall continue to maintain its geographical information system (GIS) mapping and planning database inventory of vacant and underutilized “opportunity sites.” Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Maintain land availability inventory Quantified Objective: Maintain sites available for 692 units to address the City’s RHNA A.14-1. The City shall establish a program to assist first-time home buyers. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund; HCD Home Investments Partnerships Program (HOME) Expected Outcome: Development of a first-time home buyers’ program Goal B – Affordable Housing. Ensure that housing constructed in the City is affordable to all income levels. Policies: B.1. All residential projects that receive additional densities or other City incentives to include affordable housing shall be placed into a City-approved program to maintain the affordability for at least 45 (owner-occupied) or 55 years (rental units). Any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the year restriction shall Item 9.a. - Page 36 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 19 be “rolled over” for same amount of years to protect “at risk” units. For rental housing, affordability shall be maintained through recorded agreements between a property owner and the City, its Housing Authority, or another housing provider approved by the City. For owner-occupied units, long-term affordability can be maintained through property-owner agreements to maintain the designated unit as affordable for the specified period, using a promissory note and deed of trust recorded on the property. B.2. The City shall continue monitoring affordable units to ensure ongoing compliance with the sales limits or rental rates established by agreement between the City and the developer. The City shall continue to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the regulatory agreement, including consideration of contracting with a housing authority or joining a regional monitoring agency if one is developed. B.3. The City may establish parking districts, or off-site shared parking, and use of in-lieu fees where appropriate to enable additional density. B.4. Affordable housing shall not be concentrated into a condensed, identifiable portion of a development or subdivision but rather dispersed throughout and integrated into the development as determined acceptable considering site constraints, size, and design. B.5. The City shall continue to regulate the use of existing residences on residentially zoned properties as vacation rentals. Programs: B.2-1. The City may contract with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, local non-profit organizations, or a regional monitoring agency for the monitoring of affordable units to ensure compliance with terms of development agreements and/or affordable housing agreements. Responsible agency/department: City Manager and Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: Fees for service Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is consistent monitoring of affordable units. B.5-1. The City shall monitor the loss of permanent housing from vacation rentals and consider modifying the Development Code to adjust for this loss. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Program to monitor vacation rentals Goal C – Identify Funding for Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low-Income Housing. Research and identify various additional financial and other resources to provide extremely low, very low, and low-income housing for current and future residents of the City. Item 9.a. - Page 37 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 20 Policies: C.1. The City shall establish criterion for allocating financial resources from its In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund to augment extremely low, very low, and low-income housing development. C.2. The City shall consider issuance of bonds to finance extremely low, very low, and low- income housing. C.3. The City shall pursue state and federal funds to finance extremely low, very low, and low-income housing. C.4. The City shall consider cooperation with non-profit organizations and other developers for loan and/or grant applications to provide extremely low, very low, and low-income housing. Programs: C.1-1. The City shall continue to allocate financial resources to augment extremely low, very low, and low-income housing development based on the financial projection of the In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund. Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Community Development Timeframe: During City budgeting cycle Funding: Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust Fund/Other sources, as identified Expected Outcome: Funding to finance affordable housing Quantified Objective: Three extremely low, three very low, and twenty low-income units C.4-1. The City shall continue to meet with local non-profit and private developers semi-annually or more frequently if opportunities arise, to promote the extremely low, very low, and low- income housing programs and programs for special needs residents (including those who are homeless) outlined in the Housing Element. The City shall direct private housing developers to funding sources (such as federal and state housing grant fund programs and local housing trust funds) to promote affordable housing, as outlined in the policies of Goal C. Responsible agency/department: Community Development and City Manager Timeframe: Twice per year Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased awareness of the City’s desire to provide affordable housing and to accommodate affordable housing C.4-2. The City shall continue to participate in financial incentive programs established by the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund, such as a revolving loan program. Responsible agency/department: Community Development and City Manager Item 9.a. - Page 38 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 21 Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Leverage of financial resources to augment development of affordable housing Quantified Objective: Loan(s) provided for five very low- income units Goal D – Encourage Diverse Housing Stock. In order to provide affordable housing, especially for extremely low, very low, and low-income households, encourage apartment construction. Policies: D.1. The City shall relax parking standards for apartments containing extremely low, very low, low, and/or senior housing. D.2. Evaluate the procedure for calculating density in multi-family and mixed-use developments. Programs: D.1-1. The City shall encourage specific plans for land within its sphere of influence that include increased capacity for residential development. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing, as specific plans are approved Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Possible increased land inventory to support affordable housing D.1-2. The City shall review the parking standards for affordable and senior housing projects and reduce them to the greatest extent possible. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Review parking standards by December 31, 2022; Revise parking standards in Development Code by December 31, 2023. Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Remove constraints associated with parking requirements for affordable and senior housing projects Goal E – Inclusionary Housing. Strengthen the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance to require more affordable units in both residential and commercial development projects. Policies: E.1. The City shall require housing projects greater than two units to meet inclusionary housing requirements by (1) payment of in-lieu fee, (2) on-site construction of affordable units, or (3) dedication of land. An inclusionary unit is defined as one that will meet the state’s standards for affordable housing. Item 9.a. - Page 39 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 22 E.2. An “affordable housing agreement” shall be required for projects subject to the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance. Programs: E.1-1. The City shall evaluate and consider amending the inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80) based on experience using the requirements in producing affordable units. In addition, the City shall continue to amend the in-lieu fee as needed and as called for in Chapter 16.80. Potential changes to the requirements include: (1) consider contracting with a housing management organization to manage deed-restricted affordable units in the City; (2) consider adding incentives to encourage construction of rental units; and (3) investigate extending the income categories served by the inclusionary requirements to extremely low-income households. The City will engage the development community during the evaluation process. Responsible agency/department: Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Amendments to the inclusionary affordable housing requirements and inclusionary in-lieu fee Quantified Objective: Two extremely low, five very low, 10 low, and 15 moderate-income units Goal F – Mitigate Governmental Constraints. Create clearer regulations and streamline the approval process for affordable housing projects. Policies: F.1. The City shall review and periodically amend its Development Code and design review regulations and procedures to streamline permit processing for affordable housing projects and minimize application and development review costs. Programs: F.1-1. The City shall work with non-profit organizations to maintain a list of persons interested in development projects containing affordable housing. Agendas for all City meetings related to these projects shall be sent to persons on the list. The City shall also continue to post the agendas on the City’s website. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased public awareness of affordable housing projects. Item 9.a. - Page 40 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 23 F.1-2. The City shall address and remove, replace or modify the use permit requirements for multifamily development in multifamily zones to promote certainty in the approval process, increase objectivity and address the CUP and MUP requirements as a constraint. Examples of action include: • Replace the use permit requirements with a site plan review, including approval guidance on development and design standards • Raise unit threshold allowed without an MUP or CUP to a greater threshold than currently allowed in consultation with HCD • Revise findings for use permits to be more objective, including limiting compatibility criteria to health and safety issues • Reduce the level of review for this type of project to more ministerial processes Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Remove barrier to construct affordable housing Quantified Objective: 15 lower income units F.1-3. Establish a written policy or procedure and other guidance as appropriate to specify the SB 35 (2017) streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects, as set forth under California Government Code, Section 65913.4. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: December 2021 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Remove barriers to construct affordable housing F.1-4. Conduct a comprehensive review of the Development Code and the General Plan and replace any subjective standards that may apply to housing projects with objective design standards in compliance with applicable State law. This will include revising the findings for design review to be objective. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: December 2025 Funding: General Fund, Grant Funding (e.g. SB 2, AB 101) Expected Outcome: Streamline review process and remove barriers to construct affordable housing F.1-5. The City will establish a written process to comply with Senate Bill 1087 and identify ways to move forward with improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure as needed in order to maintain sufficient infrastructure and capacity to serve the City’s housing need. This will include working on planning, funding and construction of infrastructure. Responsible agency/department: Community Development, Public Works Timeframe: Assess needs annually Item 9.a. - Page 41 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 24 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Maintain sufficient water and wastewater infrastructure and capacity Goal G – Housing Conservation and Rehabilitation. Conserve and rehabilitate the City’s older stock, particularly to provide affordable housing. Policies: G.1. The City shall encourage private and public financing of affordable housing rehabilitation. G.2. The City shall ensure zoning compatibility when integrating public affordable housing projects into existing residential neighborhoods. All impacts relating to neighborhood stability and quality of life issues shall also be considered as allowed under state law. Programs: G.1-1. The City shall continue to coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority to maintain and expand Section 8 rental housing assistance to qualified households. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing, when eligible Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Continued affordable housing. G.1-2. The City shall develop a program to offer housing developers an alternative to meet affordable housing requirements by contributing some “sweat equity” on projects where existing housing units will be rehabilitated or conserved as affordable, pursuant to the City’s Affordable Housing Program. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Conservation and rehabilitation of existing housing stock Quantified Objective: Five low-income housing units G.2-1. The City shall continue to consider abatement of unsafe or unsanitary structures, including buildings or rooms inappropriately used for housing contrary to adopted health and safety codes. Where feasible, the City will encourage rehabilitation and allow reasonable notice and time to correct deficiencies. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Conservation of existing housing stock Item 9.a. - Page 42 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 25 Goal H – At-Risk Unit Preservation. Preservation of at-risk units in Arroyo Grande. Policies: H.1. The City shall establish a notification procedure to occupants of affordable housing units of conversion to market-rate units. H.2. The City shall assist in the preservation of affordable units at risk of conversion to market- rate units. Programs: H.1-1. The City will monitor the list of all dwellings in Arroyo Grande that are subsidized by government funding or low-income housing developed through local regulations or incentives. The list will include, at least, the number of units, the type of government program, and the date on which the units are at risk to convert to market-rate dwellings. No units have been identified as at risk of converting to market rate within 10 years of the beginning of the sixth-round Housing Element planning period. The City will work to reduce the potential conversion of any units to market rate through the following actions: • Monitor the status of affordable projects, rental projects, and mobile homes in Arroyo Grande. Should the property owners indicate the desire to convert properties, consider providing technical and financial assistance, when possible, to ensure long-term affordability. • If conversion of units is likely, work with local service providers as appropriate to seek funding to subsidize the at-risk units in a way that mirrors the HUD Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program. Funding sources may include state or local funding sources. Pursuant to state law, owners of deed-restricted affordable projects are required to provide notice of restrictions that are expiring after January 1, 2021, to all prospective tenants, existing tenants, and the City within three years of the scheduled expiration of rental restrictions. In addition, the City or owner will provide notice to HUD and the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority. Owners shall also refer tenants of at-risk units to educational resources regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures and information regarding Section 8 rent subsidies and any other affordable housing opportunities in the City. In addition, notice shall be required prior to conversion of any units to market rate for any additional deed-restricted lower-income units that were constructed with the aid of government funding, that were required by inclusionary zoning requirements, that were part of a project granted a density bonus, or that were part of a project that received other incentives. If a development is offered for sale, HCD must certify persons or entities that are eligible to purchase the development and to receive notice of the pending sale. Placement on the eligibility list (see Appendix) will be based on experience with affordable housing. When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property owners of deed-restricted affordable units who need to sell within 45 years of initial sale. When the seller is unable to Item 9.a. - Page 43 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 26 sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period, equity-sharing provisions are established (pursuant to the affordable housing agreement for the property), whereby the difference between the affordable and market value is paid to the City to eliminate any incentive to sell the converted unit at market rate. Funds generated would then be used to develop additional affordable housing within the City. The City shall continue tracking all residential projects that include affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is maintained for at least 45 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental units, and that any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 45- or 55-year restriction shall be “rolled over” for another 45 or 55 years to protect “at-risk” units. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing communication with owners, service providers, and eligible potential purchasers; work with owners of deed-restricted units on an ongoing basis – in particular at the time of change of ownership. Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Preservation of existing affordable units Quantified Objective: Preserve 30 assisted units Special Needs Goal I – Special Needs Housing. Meet the housing needs of special groups of Arroyo Grande residents, including seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with developmental disabilities, single parents, large families, and farmworkers. Policies: I.1. The City shall encourage and shall seek funding to assist in the development of low- and moderate-income senior rentals. I.2. The City shall permit larger group housing for seniors in appropriate multiple-family or mixed-use locations, subject to discretionary review. I.3. The City shall continue to allow small-scale group housing (less than seven persons) in multiple-family residential districts, in accordance with applicable state laws. I.4. The City shall encourage multiple-family housing projects that include a portion of the units with three or more bedrooms to accommodate larger families. I.5. The development of housing for farmworkers shall be encouraged. I.6. Co-housing and similar unconventional housing arrangements shall be considered in appropriate locations subject to review and approval on a case-by-case basis. I.7. The City shall encourage the development of housing projects that include on-site child care facilities, particularly where projects propose 50 or more housing units or 50,000 or more square feet of commercial or industrial space. Item 9.a. - Page 44 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 27 I.8. The City shall encourage the development of projects and facilities that promote inter- generational uses and activities. Programs: I.1-1. The City shall continue to promote housing opportunities for seniors and other special needs groups by identifying sites suitable for senior and transitional housing and considering other incentives to promote senior and transitional housing. Single-room occupancy units (SROs) shall be added to the use tables in the Development Code as allowed in all mixed-use zoning districts with a CUP. SROs shall be allowed in the MFVH zoning district with an MUP. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Identifying sites - Ongoing; Development Code Amendments – Within two years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities for seniors and other special needs groups Quantified Objective: Five extremely low and 10 very low-income units I.5-1. To encourage farmworker housing, the City will amend the zoning ordinance to identify farmworker housing as a residential use in the use tables. The City Zoning Ordinance will be amended to ensure that permit processing procedures for farmworker housing do not conflict with Health and Safety Code, Section 17021.5, which states that farmworker housing for six or fewer employees should be “deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation,” and Section 17021.6, which states that for "employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household...no CUP, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone.” Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities for farmworkers Quantified Objective: Five very low-income units I.5-2. Revise the definition of family in the Development Code to comply with state law. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Clarify state compliant definition of family Item 9.a. - Page 45 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 28 The Homeless Goal J– Housing for the Homeless. Reduce or minimize the incidence of homelessness in the community. Policies: J.1. The City shall consider joint powers development and cooperation agreements to develop homeless shelters and related services or participate in the operations and maintenance of countywide or south county regional homeless shelter facilities. J.2. The City shall continue to allow emergency shelters for overnight lodging and other housing serving homeless persons in appropriate zoning districts, in compliance with state law. J.3. The City shall consider supporting overnight parking programs that may be instituted in a manner that ensures the safety and security of participants and neighboring land uses. Programs: J.1-1. The City shall continue to participate in the South San Luis Obispo County working group cooperating with other cities, the county, and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at providing homeless shelters and related services. Responsible agency/department: Community Development/City Manager Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Continued cooperation in providing homeless shelter and services J.2-1. The City shall consider implementing an overnight parking program, or a similar program, for the homeless in appropriate zoning districts. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Provide approved parking locations for the homeless to sleep J.2-2. Per AB 2162, the City will review its Development Code to ensure compliance with AB 2162 related to allowing supportive housing. The Development Code will be reviewed to assess whether supportive housing is allowed without discretionary review in all zoning districts that allow multifamily housing or mixed-use development, including nonresidential zoning districts, as applicable. If it is determined that the allowed uses in the Development Code are not in compliance with AB 2162, the City will revise the allowed uses along with corresponding development standards, as detailed in AB 2162. Responsible agency/department: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Item 9.a. - Page 46 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 29 Timeframe: Review Development Code by 2021. Make revisions by 2022. Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Allow supportive housing per state law J.2-3. As set forth in AB 101 (2019), the City will review its Development Code and make revisions, if necessary, to allow low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless pursuant to Government Code Sections 65660–65668. Responsible agency/department: Community Development, City Council Timeframe: Review Development Code by 2021. Make revisions by 2022. Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Allow low-barrier navigation centers for homeless per state law Disabled Persons Goal K – Housing for Persons with Disabilities. Ensure that those residents with handicaps or disabilities have adequate access to housing. Policies: K.1. The City shall encourage housing development that meets the special needs of disabled persons, including developmentally disabled individuals, and ensure that all new multiple-family developments comply with the handicapped provisions of the California Building Code and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). K.2. The City shall ensure, through the design review process for multiple housing projects, that project design, parking locations, pedestrian walkways, and direct access to the housing units accommodates handicapped or disabled access. Programs: K.1-1 The City shall explore models to encourage the creation of housing for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. Such models could include coordinating with the Tri-County Regional Center and other local agencies in encouraging affordable housing projects to dedicate a percent of housing for disabled individuals; assisting in housing development; providing housing services that educate, advocate, inform, and assist people to locate and maintain housing; and models to assist in the maintenance and repair of housing for persons with developmental disabilities. Responsible agency/department: Building Division/Community Development Timeframe: Establish a model program within two years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased access to housing and housing resources for disabled persons, including information and services available for developmentally disabled persons Quantified Objective: Five low-income units Item 9.a. - Page 47 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 30 K.2-1. The City shall create a policy or amend the Development Code to provide persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing an opportunity to request reasonable accommodation in the application of City building and zoning laws. Responsible agency/department: Building Division/Community Development Timeframe: Within one year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Greater accessibility for disabled persons accommodated through the design review process for discretionary residential projects Energy Conservation Goal L – Energy Conservation. Increase the efficiency of energy use in new and existing homes, with a concurrent reduction in housing costs to Arroyo Grande residents. Policies: L.1. All new dwelling units shall be required to meet current state and local requirements for energy efficiency. The retrofitting of existing units shall be encouraged. L.2. New land use patterns shall encourage energy efficiency. L.3. When feasible, buildings shall be sited on a north to south axis and designed to take advantage of passive solar heating and cooling. Programs: L.1-1. The City shall continue working to implement water conservation incentive programs, including the Plumbing Retrofit Program, and energy conservation programs, such as those described by San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch and others, as applicable. Responsible agency/department: Building Division/Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund, funds established by utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Expected Outcome: Reduce usage of water and electrical resources L.1-2. Consistent with Measure E-5 of the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City shall establish a program to allow residential projects to receive minor exceptions if they meet 25 percent of items on the Tier 1 list of the California Green Building Code (Title 24) or 15 percent of items on the Tier 2 list of that code. Responsible agency/department: Building Division/Community Development Timeframe: Establish program within two years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Encourage energy efficiency in new residential buildings Item 9.a. - Page 48 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 31 Equal Opportunity Goal M – Equal Opportunity and Fair Housing. Assure access to sound, affordable housing for all persons, regardless of race, religion, age, or sex. Policies: M.1. The City declares that all persons, regardless of race, religion, age, or sex, shall have equal access to sound and affordable housing. Programs: M.1-1. The City will continue to promote the enforcement of policies of the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission and shall resolve housing discrimination complaints through assistance from HUD, and/or local, regional private fair-housing organizations. The City will develop a fair-housing program to implement San Luis Obispo County’s Urban County Team’s fair-housing program, “Fair Housing Analysis of Impediments,” and prepare a brochure that promotes equal housing opportunities and addresses discrimination. The brochure will be available at the Community Development Department and a link to download the brochure will be placed on the City’s website. In addition, the City shall disseminate information in one or more of the following ways to ensure the public is aware of Fair Housing Law: • Distribute materials to property owners and apartment managers twice a year. • Make public service announcements through multiple media outlets, including newspaper, radio, television, and social media to run on a regular basis. • Conduct public presentations with different community groups once or twice a year. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing; Brochure available within one year of Housing Element adoption, strategy to implement Urban County Team fair housing program within one year of County Fair Housing Plan adoption. Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Dissemination of information through the City. M.1-2. Arroyo Grande will develop a plan to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). The AFFH Plan shall take actions to address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity for all persons, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8, commencing with Section 12900, of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. Specific actions will include the following: • Facilitate public education and outreach by creating informational flyers on fair housing that will be made available at public counters, libraries, and on the City’s website. City Council meetings will include a fair housing presentation at least once per year. Item 9.a. - Page 49 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 32 • Actively recruit residents from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty (if applicable) to serve or participate on boards, committees, and other local government bodies. • Ensure environmental hazards are not disproportionately concentrated in low-income communities and low-income communities of color. • Develop a proactive code enforcement program that holds property owners accountable and proactively plans for resident relocation, when necessary. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Create plan by January 2022 and implement on an ongoing basis. Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Dissemination of information at the City Hall front counter, education at City Council meetings. Housing Element Implementation Goal N – Public Participation. Ensure participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of housing policy for Arroyo Grande. Policies: N.1. The City shall encourage the participation of all residents of Arroyo Grande in the development of housing policies for the City. N.2. The City shall provide a brief summary of key information about housing-related issues to help ensure widespread notice to all residents. Programs: N.1-1. Prior to any public hearing where the City is considering amending or updating its Housing Element or housing policies, the City will notify all local housing organizations, as well as social service agencies, and post notices at locations frequented by the public. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Provide information about housing programs Item 9.a. - Page 50 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 33 2.2 Summary of Quantified Objectives Quantified objectives estimate the number of units that are planned to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. This information is presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Quantified Objectives by Income Group Housing Program Quantified Objectives by Income Group Total Extremely Low- Income Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income New Housing Production Program A.1-1. 8 27 63 0 0 98 Program A.1-2. 0 0 0 10 10 20 Program A.2-1. 0 0 120 116 0 236 Program A.3-1. 0 5 5 0 0 10 Program A.3-2. 2 0 0 0 0 2 Program A.10-1. 10 10 0 0 0 20 Program A.12-1. 85 85 107 124 291 692 Program C.1-1. 3 3 20 0 0 26 Program C.4-2. 0 5 0 0 0 5 Program E.1-1. 2 5 10 15 0 32 Program F.1-2. 2 5 8 0 0 15 Program I.1-1. 5 10 0 0 0 15 Program I.5-1. 0 5 0 0 0 5 Program K.1-1. 0 5 0 0 0 5 Subtotals 117 165 333 265 301 1,181 Preservation Program H.1-1 0 10 20 0 0 30 Subtotals 0 10 20 0 0 30 Rehabilitation Program G.1-2 0 0 5 0 0 5 Subtotals 0 0 5 0 0 5 Totals 117 175 358 225 301 1,216 Source: City of Arroyo Grande and California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), 2020. Item 9.a. - Page 51 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 34 Item 9.a. - Page 52 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 35 CHAPTER 3 – BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 Introduction The City of Arroyo Grande occupies 5.45 square miles (3,388 acres) of land along U.S. Highway 101 in southwestern San Luis Obispo County, as shown on Figure 3-1. It is immediately adjacent to the west, southwest, and south to urban development within the cities of Pismo Beach and Grover Beach, and the unincorporated community of Oceano, as shown on Figure 3-2. Unincorporated lands adjoin the City to the north, east, and south. Residential rural and suburban developments characterize unincorporated areas to the north and southeast of the City, while agricultural uses dominate the Arroyo Grande Valley to the northeast and the Cienega Valley south of the City. Arroyo Grande Creek runs in a generally north to south direction through the eastern portion of the City. This chapter presents and analyzes demographic, population, and housing characteristics that are crucial to understanding the local housing market and needs and to plan for different housing types for all income levels. Item 9.a. - Page 53 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 36 Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map Item 9.a. - Page 54 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 37 Figure 3-2 South County Location Map Item 9.a. - Page 55 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 38 3.2 Demographic Overview This section provides information on population trends (population growth, ethnicity, age, and sex); household data (size, tenure, and type of household); income; and employment. Population Trends Population Growth. The City of Arroyo Grande’s population has grown from 3,291 in 1960 to 17,876 in 2019 according to the U.S. Census and California Department of Finance (DOF). Population growth during the 1960s occurred rapidly, some years exceeding 12 percent. In the 1970s, growth slowed to an average of seven percent over the decade, falling still further in the 1980s to less than two percent from 1980 to 1990. According to the U.S. Census, Arroyo Grande grew 10.2 percent between 1990 and 2000 and 8.8 percent between 2000 and 2010. Table 3-1 compares population growth in Arroyo Grande from 2010 to 2019 relative to Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the State of California. This table indicates that the growth that occurred in Arroyo Grande from 2010 to 2019 was higher than Grover Beach and comparable to the County, but less than Pismo Beach or the State of California. Table 3-1 Trends in Population Growth 2000 2010 2019 Number Number Change from 2000 Number Change from 2010 Arroyo Grande 15,851 17,252 8.80% 17,876 3.62% Grover Beach 13,067 13,156 0.70% 13,533 2.87% Pismo Beach 8,551 7,655 -10.50% 8,239 7.63% San Luis Obispo County 246,681 269,637 9.30% 280,393 3.99% California 33,871,648 37,253,956 10.00% 39,927,315 7.18% Source: U.S. Census 2000, State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark Current estimates by SLOCOG in their 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (2017) project the City’s population to reach approximately 20,449 residents by 2050, based upon a compound annual growth rate of 0.39 percent (see Table 3-2). Table 3-2 Population Growth Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 % Annual Change Arroyo Grande 18,288 19,505 20,158 20,449 0.39% Grover Beach 13,751 14,536 14,934 15,091 0.32% Pismo Beach 8,642 9,486 9,901 10,079 0.55% San Luis Obispo County 286,657 305,692 315,922 320,482 0.39% Source: SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, Population Projections by Jurisdiction, 2010 to 2050 (Medium Scenario) Age and Sex Distribution. Table 3-3 shows that in 2017, 27 percent of the population of Arroyo Grande was age 24 years and under, 34 percent of the population was between 25 and 54 years, and 40 percent was 55 years or older. The highest percentage in one age category, 23 percent, is in the 65 and older age range, followed by the 55 to 64 age range (17 percent). The median age in years is 48. These statistics reflect an older population than California as a whole, with a Item 9.a. - Page 56 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 39 higher percentage of those considered seniors (55 or over). However, this is similar to trends in San Luis Obispo County as a whole, with the senior population increasing more rapidly than other age groups. Table 3-3 Trends in Population Age Age Group 2010 2017 Percent Change Number of Persons Percent of Total Number of Persons Percent of Total <15 2,933 17% 2,603 14% -11% 15–24 1,893 11% 2,269 13% 20% 25–34 1,755 10% 1,364 8% -22% 35–44 1,949 11% 2,268 13% 16% 45–54 2,657 15% 2,320 13% -13% 55–64 2,572 15% 3,015 17% 17% 65+ 3,493 20% 4,132 23% 18% Total 17,252 100% 17,971 100% 4% Source: U.S. Census 2010 and ACS 2013–2017 Between 2010 and 2017, there were increases in the age ranges 55 and older and between 15 and 24 years, and a large decrease in the 25 to 34 age range, while all other age ranges remained similar. These trends can be seen in Figure 3-3. Figure 3-3 Change in Population Age, 2010 to 2017 Source: U.S. Census 2010 and 2017 Race and Ethnicity. Table 3-4 reports the race and ethnicity of the demographics in the City of Arroyo Grande. The residents of the City of Arroyo Grande are majority white, with 85.4 percent of the population identifying this way in 2018. Approximately 17 percent of the population in the City identify as Hispanic or Latinx. The questions posed by the Census regarding race and ethnicity 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% <15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 2010 2017 Item 9.a. - Page 57 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 40 provide the opportunity for respondents to self-identify with a sub-group within the racial and ethnic categories; 66.5 percent of respondents who identified as Hispanic or Latinx also identified as White. Over four percent of the population identifies as Asian, almost four percent identifies as two or more races, and over three percent identifies as some other race. All other subgroups comprised less than two percent of the population. Table 3-4 Race and Ethnicity Race or Ethnicity Number of Persons Percent of Total White 15,411 85% Black or African American 142 1% American Indian and Alaska Native 271 2% Asian 814 5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 122 1% Two or more races 659 4% Some other race 620 3% Hispanic or Latino1 3,061 17% Total 18,039 100% 1 Hispanic or Latino (or Latinx) category is counted separately and in addition to other categories. Source: ACS 2014–2018 Household Data Household Projections. According to SLOCOG’s Regional Growth Forecast, Arroyo Grande is expected to grow from 7,087 households in 2010 to 8,460 households in 2050, reflecting a 0.5- percent annual increase in households. In comparison, Grover Beach is anticipated to grow at a slightly slower rate of 0.4 percent per year, while Pismo Beach will grow faster at 0.6 percent per year. All these rates are quite gradual. The County’s number of households is expected to grow at nearly the same rate as the City of Arroyo Grande through 2050, as shown in Table 3-5. Table 3-5 Trends in Household Growth 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 % Annual Change Arroyo Grande 7,087 7,493 8,064 8,349 8,460 0.48% Grover Beach 5,111 5,327 5,689 5,878 5,963 0.42% Pismo Beach 3,834 4,250 4,582 4,742 4,805 0.63% San Luis Obispo County 102,016 108,169 116,112 120,215 121,826 0.49% Source: SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast Item 9.a. - Page 58 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 41 Household Size. According to the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS), the average household size in Arroyo Grande is 2.47 persons. The City’s average household size increased slightly from 2.41 to 2.47 between 2010 and 2017. Tenure by Household. Table 3-6 shows the occupancy of housing units in Arroyo Grande. Overall, 70 percent of households are owner-occupied, and 30 percent rent. In comparison, about 60 percent of households are owner-occupied countywide, while the remaining 40 percent of households are renter-occupied. Table 3-6 Household Tenure Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Totals Number Percent Number Percent Number Arroyo Grande 5,023 70% 2,169 30% 7,192 Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013-2017 ACS, Table B25003 Income Table 3-7 shows income ranges and the number of households in each range in Arroyo Grande. According to U.S. Census, the median income for Arroyo Grande households was $80,615 in 2018. This is compared to the 2010 median household income of $58,725 in Table 3-6. The largest category that renter-occupied households in Arroyo Grande fell into in 2018 was the $50,000 to $74,999 range (7 percent of total renter households). The largest category in 2018 for owner- occupied households was the $100,000 or more range (35 percent of total owner households). Item 9.a. - Page 59 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 42 Table 3-7 Trends in Household Income 2010 2018 Percent Change in No. of Households Households Percent Households Percent Renter-Occupied Less than $10,000 136 2% 52 1% -61.8% $10,000 to $14,999 218 3% 141 2% -35.3% $15,000 to $24,999 293 4% 325 5% 10.9% $25,000 to $34,999 328 5% 174 2% -47.0% $35,000 to $49,999 358 5% 309 4% -13.7% $50,000 to $74,999 472 7% 500 7% 5.9% $75,000 to $99,999 182 3% 297 4% 63.2% $100,000 or more 131 2% 411 6% 213.7% Owner-Occupied Less than $10,000 122 2% 143 2% 17.2% $10,000 to $14,999 189 3% 133 2% -29.6% $15,000 to $24,999 277 4% 309 4% 11.6% $25,000 to $34,999 385 5% 213 3% -44.7% $35,000 to $49,999 668 9% 336 5% -49.7% $50,000 to $74,999 862 12% 596 9% -30.9% $75,000 to $99,999 814 12% 612 9% -24.8% $100,000 or more 1,616 23% 2,448 35% 51.5% Total Households 7,051 100% 6,999 100% — Median Income (All Households) $58,725 — $80,615 — — Source: U.S. Census 2010; ACS 2014–2018, Table B25118 Employment Table 3-8 compares employment growth estimates from SLOCOG in their 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (2017) in Arroyo Grande from 2020 to 2050 to Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and the County of San Luis Obispo. The City’s employment is anticipated to grow to approximately 7,913 employees by 2050, based upon a compound annual growth rate of 1.27 percent. This table indicates that the job growth that will occur in Arroyo Grande from 2020 to 2050 will be higher than Grover Beach and the County and greater than but comparable to Pismo Beach. Table 3-8 Employment Growth Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 % Annual Change Arroyo Grande 6,822 7,364 7,705 7,913 1.27% Grover Beach 3,109 3,355 3,509 3,604 0.55% Pismo Beach 4,919 5,309 5,555 5,705 1.07% San Luis Obispo County 115,842 125,054 130,837 134,375 0.86% Source: SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast Item 9.a. - Page 60 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 43 According to the 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey for the region, employment in a wide range of industries are anticipated to grow through 2026. However, this data was gathered prior to the impacts to the economy due to COVID-19 and does not take the COVID-19 pandemic into account. In Table 3-9, home health aides and market research analysts or marketing specialists are expected to grow the most, increasing by 47 and 45 percent, respectively. Most of these professions have relatively high median hourly wages, given that the minimum wage in California is $12 as of 2020. Veterinary assistants or lab animal caretakers and nonfarm animal caretakers had the lowest median hourly wage, both earning under $15 per hour. Table 3-9 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande Metropolitan Statistical Area Projections of Employment Occupation 2019 Median Hourly Wage 2019 Median Annual Salary Estimated Employment Percent Change 2016 2026 Software Developers, Systems Software $43.77 $91,048 360 490 36% Cost Estimators $38.37 $79,817 220 270 23% Electricians $34.23 $71,207 620 800 29% Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists $30.20 $62,814 420 610 45% Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $24.75 $51,474 670 790 18% Construction Laborers $22.14 $46,057 1,210 1,590 31% Medical Secretaries $20.19 $41,996 500 670 34% Home Health Aides $16.37 $34,038 170 250 47% Veterinary Assistants and Lab Animal Caretakers $14.83 $30,839 240 320 33% Nonfarm Animal Caretakers $14.46 $30,075 270 360 33% Source: U.S. Department of Labor's Employment Cost Index, 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey Data from the California Employment Development Department shown in Table 3-10 shows the largest employers in San Luis Obispo County, including the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital located in the City. All other major companies are located elsewhere in the county, and many residents may commute out of Arroyo Grande for work at one of these other employers. Major employers in the county are medical offices, schools, and regional or federal government offices. Additionally, using ACS data, Table 3-11 shows the number of jobs within the City by industry category. The City’s largest industry is the educational services and health care sector, consisting of 1,897 jobs, or 22 percent. Following that is the arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services sector supplying 14 percent of the jobs in the City. Item 9.a. - Page 61 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 44 Table 3-10 Largest Employers Employer Name Location Industry Number of Employees Arroyo Grande Community Hospital Arroyo Grande Hospitals 1,000 -- 4,999 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Avila Beach and San Luis Obispo Electric Companies 1,000 -- 4,999 Cal Poly San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Schools -- Universities & Colleges Academic 1,000 -- 4,999 San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo Government Offices -- County 1,000 -- 4,999 California Men's Colony San Luis Obispo Correctional Facility -- State 1,000 -- 4,999 AMI Sierra Vista Radiology San Luis Obispo Physicians & Surgeons 500 -- 999 Medi-Cal San Luis Obispo Government Offices -- County 500 -- 999 Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center San Luis Obispo Hospitals 500 -- 999 Cuesta College San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles Schools -- Universities & Colleges Academic 500 -- 999 County Office of Education San Luis Obispo Schools 250 -- 499 French Hospital Medical Center San Luis Obispo Hospitals 250 -- 499 San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Department San Luis Obispo Sheriff 250 -- 499 Source: EDD, America's Labor Market Information System (ALMIS) Employer Database, 2016 1st edition, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce website -- Pacific Coast Business Times 2017 Table 3-11 Industry Profile Jobs Percent Educational services, and health care and social assistance 1,897 22.35% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 1,177 13.87% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 992 11.69% Retail trade 823 9.70% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 667 7.86% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 609 7.18% Construction 571 6.73% Public administration 563 6.63% Manufacturing 498 5.87% Other services, except public administration 350 4.12% Wholesale trade 164 1.93% Information 101 1.19% Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, and mining 74 0.87% Total 8,486 100.00% Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013-2017 ACS, Table DP-03 Item 9.a. - Page 62 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 45 Another issue related to employment and residency is the matter of commuting to work. U.S. Census data indicates that of the estimated 8,386 workers 16 years and over, 6,542, or 78 percent, drove alone to work. Only 42 employees, or 0.5 percent, used public transportation. The mean travel time to work was 21.5 minutes (see Table 3-12). This would indicate that most of the City’s working residents are commuting to jobs outside of Arroyo Grande. Table 3-12 Commute Patterns Travel Time to Work Percentage Less than 15 minutes 33% 15 to 29 minutes 47% 30 to 59 minutes 17% 60 or more minutes 4% Average Travel Time (minutes) 21.5 Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Table S0801 3.3 Housing Characteristics This section provides information on types of housing, vacancy rates, overcrowding, age of units, and housing conditions. Types of Housing Table 3-13 provides a breakdown of the total housing units by type of structure for 2010 and 2019. In 2019, it was estimated that there were 7,853 housing units in the City, an increase of 225 housing units from 2010. This was a 77-percent decrease from the number of housing units added from 2000 to 2010 (963-unit increase). As indicated, most of the units (68 percent) in Arroyo Grande are single-family units. Table 3-13 Trends in Housing Type 2010 2019 Number Percent Number Percent Total Housing Units 7,628 100% 7,853 100% Units in Structure 1-unit, detached 5,201 68% 5,358 68% 1-unit, attached 627 8% 648 8% Multiple-Family 2–4 Units 360 5% 366 5% Multiple-Family 5 + Units 845 11% 886 11% Mobile home or Other 595 8% 595 8% Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet: California DOF E-5 Estimates 2019 Item 9.a. - Page 63 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 46 Vacancy Rates The U.S. Census reported 673 vacant units in 2017, which is nine percent of the total housing units in the City. The number of vacant units in the City has increased from the 541 vacant units reported in 2010. As shown in Table 3-14, almost two-thirds of the vacant units are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Table 3-14 shows that 21 percent of the vacant units are vacant for reasons other than being available for rent or sale, rented but not occupied, and sold but not occupied. These figures should not be confused with the reported vacancy rates of the City, which represents the proportion of vacant rental inventory to the sum of renter- or owner-occupied units, year- round units awaiting occupancy, and the vacant year-round units for rent. Table 3-14 Vacant Units by Type, 2017 Number Percent For rent 37 5% For sale only 28 4% Rented, not occupied 0 0% Sold, not occupied 43 6% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 426 63% Other vacant 139 21% Total Vacant Units 673 100% Source: 6th Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013-2017 ACS, Table B25002 Vacancy rates are commonly used as an indicator of housing market activity in a given area. The individual vacancy rate for a community theoretically measures the health of the local housing market. The vacancy rate is a percentage of the total housing stock that is vacant and/or available for sale or rent at any one time. Generally, a two-percent vacancy rate in units available for owner-occupancy and a six-percent rate for rental units are considered desirable to keep prices down and to ensure that units are available to new and relocating residents. Vacancy rates for 2010 and 2017 are shown in Table 3-15. Vacancy rates are calculated by dividing the total vacant year-round units by the sum of occupied units, vacant year-round units that are awaiting occupancy, and vacant year-round units. For Arroyo Grande in 2017, it was reported that there was a 0.5-percent vacancy rate for owner-occupied units and a 4.2-percent vacancy rate for rental units. In 2010, the vacancy rate was 1.9 percent for owner-occupied units and 4.0-percent for rental units. The 2017 vacancy rate for owner-occupied units is lower than the optimal rate described above, and the vacancy rate for rental units is also less than the optimal rate. This indicates a shortage of both owner-occupied units and rental housing units in the city. However, this is not an uncommon statistic in the south San Luis Obispo County area; Neighboring Grover Beach has an overall total unit vacancy rate of three percent and San Luis Obispo County, just less than three percent. Item 9.a. - Page 64 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 47 Table 3-15 Vacancy Rates 2010 2017 Optimal Vacancy Rates Owner-occupied 1.9% 0.5% 2.0% Rental Units 4.0% 4.2% 6.0% Overall Total Unit Vacancy 7.0% 4.7% -- Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013-2017 ACS, Table B25002 Overcrowded Units A common method of measuring overcrowding in housing is to compare the number of persons to the number of rooms in the unit. The U.S. Census defines an overcrowded household as one that has more than 1.01 persons per room (not including kitchens and bathrooms), while units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. In Arroyo Grande, the data collected from the 2013–2017 ACS shows that three percent of all occupied units were overcrowded. As shown in Table 3-16, U.S. Census data indicates 139 units or 1.9 percent of the total occupied housing units had been between 1.01 and 1.50 occupants per room, and 81 units, or 1.1 percent, of all units were severely overcrowded at 1.51 occupants or more per room. Table 3-16 Overcrowding by Tenure Occupants Per Room Owner-Occupied Renter Occupied Total Number of Households Percent Number of Households Percent Number of Households Percent 1.00 or less 4,945 98.5% 2,027 91.8% 6,972 96.4% 1.01 – 1.50 32 0.6% 107 4.8% 139 1.9% 1.51 or more 46 0.9% 35 1.6% 81 1.1% Total 5,023 100.0% 2,209 100.0% 7,232 100.0% Source: ACS 2013–2017 The rate of overcrowding in the City is lower than San Luis Obispo County as a whole, which has a 3.4-percent overcrowding rate (more than 1.01 persons per room). While the rate may in comparison be lower than many other communities, the incidence of overcrowding (220 units) should still be considered. The problem of overcrowding for large families can be addressed by the construction of more affordable larger units. However, overcrowding goes beyond family size to affordability issues. Even single individuals and small families may be affected by overcrowding. Due to limited incomes and high housing costs and rents, individuals and families may be forced to double up with extended family members or non-relatives in similar circumstances. Overcrowding will be addressed by promotion and production of more affordable units in the City and regional cooperation on housing issues. Age of Housing Units The age of housing is an important characteristic of its relative condition as older units tend to be in greater need of repair. Many federal and state programs use age of housing to determine Item 9.a. - Page 65 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 48 potential housing rehabilitation needs. Typically, the useful life of major components of an average quality housing structure ranges from 20 to 30 years for items such as roofing, plumbing, landscaping, paving, and electrical. When a housing unit is over 30 years old, the replacement or refurbishing of major components is an important factor in the ability of a community to provide safe, decent, and sanitary housing. Table 3-17 provides a breakdown of the age of housing units in Arroyo Grande through 2019. In reviewing this table, the largest percentage of the housing units was constructed between 1970 and 1979 (24.9 percent), followed by units built from 1980 to 1989 (18.4 percent). This suggests that nearly 84 percent of the housing stock is 20 years or older, while 72 percent is 30 years or older. The table indicates that 293 units were built prior to 1940. However, according to a survey of the housing stock, most of the City’s housing is in sound condition (see next section). Table 3-17 Year Structure Built Year Structure Built Number Percent 2016 to 2019 161 2.0% 2005 to 2015 358 4.5% 2000 to 2004 776 9.8% 1990 to 1999 886 11.2% 1980 to 1989 1,457 18.4% 1970 to 1979 1,974 24.9% 1960 to 1969 843 10.6% 1950 to 1959 898 11.3% 1940 to 1949 284 3.6% 1939 or earlier 293 3.7% Total 7,930 100% Source: U.S. Census 2010; City of Arroyo Grande 2020. Condition of Units One of the issues required by state housing element law for discussion and analysis is the condition of the community’s housing stock. The purpose for this is to provide a basis for determining which units need rehabilitation and which units may be beyond feasible repair and determined to need demolition and replacement. One of the guidelines set by the state is that units constructed before 1960 may be eligible for repair and/or rehabilitation to keep those units in the existing housing stock. To maintain the historical nature of the community, many older communities like Arroyo Grande have already repaired and/or rehabilitated many of their older units. Based upon the review of Table 3-17, 1,475 or 19 percent of the total housing units in the City were built prior to 1960. While these numbers could represent an estimate of the number of housing units that could be analyzed for rehabilitation need, the 1993 Housing Element survey was conducted to determine the structural condition of housing in Arroyo Grande. The structural condition of housing units was reported as “sound,” in need of “minor rehabilitation,” “moderate rehabilitation,” “substantial rehabilitation,” or “dilapidated.” The survey used a point system to evaluate the housing units in the City. The result of this survey was that 99.3 percent of the 1993 housing units were in “sound” condition, 0.4 percent or 26 units were in need of “minor Item 9.a. - Page 66 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 49 rehabilitation,” 0.3 percent or 13 units were in need of “moderate rehabilitation” and one unit was in need of “substantial rehabilitation.” No units were determined to be dilapidated. The survey concluded that virtually all housing units were in sound condition and the overall appearance of the City is of well-maintained homes. To update the findings of the 1993 housing survey, City staff conducted a windshield survey of housing units in the older neighborhoods where housing conditions may be an issue. The survey located less than 10 units that appear to need substantial rehabilitation or removal. Sixteen units that were deemed to be in dilapidated condition were demolished during the period of June 30, 2003, and June 30, 2007. The City has not identified any additional units in need of demolition. During the previous 2014-2019 planning period, 10 code enforcement cases related to substandard housing were opened. All cases have since been resolved. Generally the condition of the housing in Arroyo Grande has improved since 2014 because home values have gone up, allowing people to obtain funding for improvements, and the majority of the building permits the City has processed since 2014 are homeowners re-investing in their homes, including small expansions and remodels of existing homes. In addition, the City’s code enforcement and building inspection staff note health and safety issues that they observe when out in the field on a call and provide property owners with resources that can assist with necessary repairs/corrections. 3.4 Housing Affordability One of the key issues facing the provision of housing in the state is affordability. The ability to acquire safe and sound housing is a major social and economic issue. It continues to affect decisions regarding business retention and expansion, commuting distances for employees, as well as the overall quality of life. The housing affordability issue is further complicated by the limited financial and other resources available to mitigate the current housing situation. The primary issue of housing affordability on the Central Coast is the relationship between household income and the cost of housing. This section covers housing prices, rental rates, affordability thresholds, overpayment, and long-term affordability issues. Housing Prices According to the San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors as published in SLO LIFE Magazine, the median value of a home in 2019 in San Luis Obispo County was $720,972 and $882,000 for Arroyo Grande. Median means a point where 50 percent of housing prices are below the listed number and 50 percent are above. Housing prices in 2019 in Arroyo Grande were 15 percent higher than in 2018. Housing prices in Arroyo Grande are higher than in the County, as shown in Figure 3-4. Item 9.a. - Page 67 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 50 Figure 3-4 Median Home Prices Trend, Arroyo Grande and County Source: SLO Life Magazine 2019 - SLO Association of Realtors Rental Unit Rates According to Zillow, the median rent in Arroyo Grande was $2,400 per month in March 2020. Market rental rates were gathered using Zillow, an online real estate and rental marketplace, on March 5, 2020. Table 3-18 shows the average market rental rates for each type of unit. Table 3-18 Market Rental Rates by Unit Type Average Median Lowest Highest 1 Bedroom $1,532 $1,600 $1,295 $1,700 2 Bedroom $1,933 $1,945 $1,410 $2,800 3 Bedroom $2,836 $2,700 $2,250 $3,900 4 Bedroom $2,835 $2,973 $1,995 $3,400 5 Bedroom 1 $2,995 Total $2,440 $2,400 $1,295 $3,900 1 There was only one unit at this size available on Zillow at the time of the survey. Source: Zillow, retrieved March 5, 2020 While this rental analysis involves a limited number of housing units that were available for rent at the time of the point-in-time survey (the number of units listed in each category ranges from 1 to 13), the data does give a perspective on rents being published in Arroyo Grande. Market rental rates varied for apartments and single-family residences. The lowest rent found for a unit was $1,295, while the highest was $3,900. Three and four-bedroom units had a higher average rental cost than one- and two-bedroom units. While the five-bedroom average rent was lower, there was only one unit available on Zillow, which may account for the skewed price. $600,000 $650,000 $700,000 $750,000 $800,000 $850,000 $900,000 2018 2019 Arroyo Grande SLO County Item 9.a. - Page 68 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 51 Affordability Thresholds Affordable rental and sales prices for housing were calculated by the County of San Luis Obispo Planning and Building Department using HCD’s 2020 income limits and are summarized in Table 3- 19. The median home price in Arroyo Grande in 2019 was reported as $882,000. As can be seen in Table 3-19, a moderate-income household cannot afford this price. While they may be able to afford some available rental housing, large households, low-income households, and extremely low-income households may still have a difficult time finding decent housing. Overpayment Another measure of housing affordability is the percentage of income paid for housing. State housing guidelines consider 30 percent of gross income paid for housing costs as the standard affordable level and those households paying 30 percent or more as overpayment. According to the 2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 1,570 households or 22 percent of the owner-occupied units were paying monthly housing costs of 30 percent or more of their income, as shown in Table 3-20. For renter-occupied housing units, 1,215 households or 17 percent Table 3-19 San Luis Obispo County Housing Affordability Studio3 1 Bedroom4 2 Bedroom5 3 Bedroom6 4 Bedroom7 Maximum Affordable Rent1: Extremely Low- Income $510 $583 $655 $728 $786 Very Low- $849 $970 $1,091 $1,213 $1,310 Low-Income $1,359 $1,553 $1,746 $1,940 $2,096 Moderate $2,044 $2,335 $2,628 $2,919 $3,153 Maximum Affordable Sales Price2: Extremely Low $56,988 $76,995 $100,885 $124,773 $144,132 Very Low $164,727 $204,681 $234,144 $260,161 $281,081 Low $291,542 $333,113 $374,686 $416,258 $449,784 Moderate $438,520 $501,013 $563,772 $626,264 $676,420 Note: Prices shown are preliminary estimates and may be revised. Actual sales price limits will be determined by the County on a case-by-case basis. Footnotes correspond below: 1. These rent limits are assumed to be 30 percent of the monthly total household income. 2. Assumptions include $500 in monthly expenses, 20-percent down payment, property taxes, and fees, and property insurance and 4.5-percent interest rate., $150/month for HOA dues, Mortgage financing at fixed rate of 4.35% for 30 years (per HSH Associates) 3. Studio assumes one person occupies the unit. 4. One bedroom assumes two people occupy the unit. 5. Two bedroom assumes that three people occupy the unit. 6. Three bedroom assumes that four people occupy the unit. 7. Four bedroom assumes that five people occupy the unit. Source: HCD 2020, Chase Online Affordability Calculator Item 9.a. - Page 69 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 52 paid 30 percent or more for rent compared to household income. Lower-income households often face a greater incidence of housing overpayment, allocating a greater portion of their income to cover housing costs. Approximately 75 percent of lower-income renters overpay for housing, and 57 percent of lower-income homeowners overpay for monthly housing costs. Table 3-20 Total Household Overpayment by Income, 2015 Total Household Characteristics Number Percentage of Total Households Total occupied units (households) 7,040 100% Total renter households 2,355 33% Total owner households 4,685 67% Total lower- income (0–80% of HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI)) households 2,880 41% Lower-income renters 1,510 21% Lower-income owners 1,370 19% Extremely low-income renters 315 4% Extremely low-income owners 355 5% Lower-income households severely overpaying (paying more than 50%) 1,010 14% Lower-income renter households severely overpaying 535 8% Lower-income owner households severely overpaying 475 7% Extremely low income (ELI) (0–30% of HAMFI) 390 6% ELI renter households severely overpaying 210 3% ELI owner households severely overpaying 180 3% Lower-income households overpaying (paying more than 30%) 1,915 27% Lower-income renter households overpaying 1,140 16% Lower-income owner households overpaying 775 11% Total households overpaying 2,785 39% Total renter households overpaying 1,215 17% Total owner households overpaying 1,570 22% Source: CHAS Databook, 2011–2015 Long-Term Affordability It is apparent, based on the data that the households that appear to be in the greatest need of housing assistance are those of low and very low-income. Affordable housing provided by City incentives is required to be maintained as affordable for a period of at least 45 (owner-occupied) or 55 years (rental units). The issue of long-term affordability is a subject of a number of existing programs that ensure that affordable units maintain their status. Affordability terms are secured by a promissory note and deed of trust, recorded on the property prior to or concurrent with the initial occupancy (for rental units) or sale of property. The promissory note is based on the monetary difference between the initial purchase and the initial appraised value as an “affordability loan” or “silent second” payable to the City. The loan accrues interest Item 9.a. - Page 70 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 53 at a rate set by the City when the note is executed, amortized over 45 years. Monthly payments (principal plus interest) on the affordability loan are typically waived as long as eligible residents continue to own and reside in the property. The City’s established priority has been to maintain units as affordable. Therefore, they are only allowed to be sold at market value if the seller is unable to sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period. In such cases, equity-sharing provisions are established within the affordable housing agreement whereby the difference between the affordable and market value is paid to the City to eliminate incentives for conversion to market-rate units. 3.5 Special Housing Needs Groups This section reviews the characteristics of households with special housing needs, including elderly or senior households, families with female heads of households, large family households, farmworker households, disabled persons/households, and homeless people. Elderly/Senior Households An analysis of the needs of elderly or senior households or persons is important for four reasons: (1) many elderly have fixed, limited incomes; (2) many elderly persons are “over-housed” (living alone or with two people in a three- or four-bedroom house); (3) some elderly have mobility and health problems that can create special housing needs; and (4) recent projections indicate an increase in the elderly population in the planning period, both those currently living in the area or those that will be relocating to the area (in addition to data showing an increase in seniors during the previous planning period). According to the 2013–2017 ACS, there are a total of 5,023 owner-occupied housing units and 2,169 renter-occupied housing units, of which, 2,614 are senior households. Table 3-21 represents householders by tenure and age in the City of Arroyo Grande. Table 3-21 Senior Households Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 65 and older 2,073 41% 541 25% 2,614 36% 65 to 74 years 1,045 21% 311 14% 1,356 19% 75 to 84 years 736 15% 178 8% 914 13% 85 years and older 292 6% 52 2% 344 5% Total 64 and under 2,950 59% 1,628 75% 4,578 64% Total (all ages) 5,023 100% 2,169 100% 7,192 100% Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013–2017 ACS Families with Female Heads of Households State law identifies female-headed households as having special needs due to their income challenges, childcare expenses, and need for affordable housing. Female-headed households are households with a female occupant and no partner present. The 2013–2017 ACS reported that of the total 4,775 households in the City, there were 433 female-headed households. This represents 9.1 percent of the total households (see Table 3-22). Of these households, 173 or 3.6 Item 9.a. - Page 71 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 54 percent, had children. Based upon the ACS Census data for incomes in 2017, 25 female-headed households were reported to be below the poverty level. Table 3-22 Housing Problems for Female head of Households 2017 Number Percent Total households1 4,775 100.0% Total female-headed households 433 9.1% Female Household Heads with Children 173 3.6% Female Household Heads without Children 260 5.4% Female Headed Householders Below the Poverty Level 25 0.5% Total Families Below the Poverty Level 192 4.0% 1 Note that this total householder count is smaller than the total household count presented elsewhere in this Housing Element. This is the total presented by the Census in the data packet as approved by HCD and therefore, considered accurate for this table. Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, ACS 2013–2017 Large Families/Households Large households are those consisting of five or more persons. Large families can have special housing needs if they cannot find affordable large housing units. In that case, their living conditions may become overcrowded. Table 3-23 shows the total occupied housing units by the number of persons living within each unit. This information is shown for owner-occupied and rental housing. The highest percentage of owner-occupied housing units is for a two- to four-person unit (69 percent). About eight percent of the owner-occupied households are occupied by five or more persons. For renter-occupied units, one-person households and two- to four-person households are equally common, accounting for 45 percent of all households, each. About 10 percent of the renter-occupied units are occupied by five or more persons. These numbers are generally low compared to the county as a whole. Table 3-23 Tenure by Household Size Owner-Occupied Housing Units Renter-Occupied Housing Units Number Percent Number Percent 1-person household 1,171 23% 866 45% 2- to 4-person household 3,456 69% 882 45% 5- or more person household 396 8% 197 10% Total 5,023 100% 1,945 100% Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, 2013–2017 ACS, Table B25009 Item 9.a. - Page 72 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 55 Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low-Income Households Lower-income households (earning 80 percent or less of median household income) generally have a higher incidence of housing problems. Extremely low-income households earn 30 percent or less of the median household income. As of 2016, approximately 21 percent of Arroyo Grande households (1,535 households) had extremely or very low incomes. A continuing priority of communities is maintaining quality of life. A key measure of quality of life is the extent of housing problems. According to the federal government, the term “housing problems” refers to overpayment, overcrowding, and when residential units lack sufficient kitchens or plumbing. The CHAS was developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to assist jurisdictions in writing their HUD-required consolidated plans. The CHAS data provides information about housing problems in Arroyo Grande. According to this data (Table 3-24), 72 percent of extremely or very low-income renter households had housing problems. In comparison, 56 percent of extremely or very low-income owner households had housing problems. Table 3-24 Housing Problems for Lower-Income Households Renters Owners Total Household Income <= 30% HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) with any housing problem 245 260 505 Household Income > 30% to <= 50% HAMFI (Very Low-Income) 330 155 485 Percentage of households (<= 50% HAMFI) with any housing problem 72% 56% 64% Source: CHAS 2012–2016 Between December 31, 2018, and December 31, 2028, the RHNA estimate for very low-income housing need in Arroyo Grande is 170 housing units. Based on HCD standards, 50 percent of these should be planned for extremely low-income households. Therefore, it is projected that an additional 85 extremely low-income households will be added to the City. Farmworker Households According to the 2017 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Census, there are 11,416 workers in San Luis Obispo County hired on farms. Farmworkers are classified into permanent farmworkers working 150 days or more, seasonal farmworkers working less than 150 days and earning at least half of their annual income from farming, and migrant farmworkers who have seasonal tenure and travel great distances for work. Generally, farmworker earnings are lower than other measures of income adequacy such as the California Self Sufficiency Standard and about the same as the federal poverty guidelines for a family of four. There is also a need for many more units of farmworker housing in California both to maintain the current level of farmworkers and their families living in subsidized housing and a much larger number to alleviate the high levels of existing overcrowding in farmworker households. Given the location and environment of Arroyo Grande near active agricultural areas, it is assumed that there is a need for farmworker housing within the City. There are 588 farms in the county. There are 8,681 farmworkers who work fewer than 150 days. The percent of resident versus migrant workers in this area is unknown. HCD reports that there are 83 farmworker housing units provided under farmworker grant programs in the county. Of the farmworkers living in the four farmworker employee housing Item 9.a. - Page 73 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 56 facilities, 79 are permanent farmworkers and 16 are seasonal. Studies continue to indicate that most farmworkers live in substandard conditions. The major issue for resident farmworkers is that they are generally low income and thus have to compete for housing with other lower-income residents. The issue for many migrant workers is that farm employers are not required to provide housing. As a result many farmworkers and their families must find their own housing, which sometimes leads to workers living in their cars or in illegal units. The greatest need for migrant workers is temporary seasonal housing. This could be in the form of bunk houses on the property where the workers are employed. In summary, farmworkers generally earn low incomes, live in overcrowded units, and pay a disproportionate share of income for housing. The City is in compliance with the state Employee Housing Act that addresses housing for agricultural workers (Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6). Persons with Disabilities The 2013–2017 ACS recorded the disability status of the civilian non-institutional population of City residents. Approximately 19 percent of residents in the City reported having a disability. The age breakdown can be seen in Table 3-25, showing that the largest percentage (60.4 percent) of the disabilities are reported by those 65 years of age or older. The two most common disabilities in that age range are ambulatory difficulty (32.1 percent) and hearing difficulty (31.1 percent). Cognitive difficulty is the most common disability reported by people between ages 5 and 64 years old, reported in 17.5 percent of all disabled people in the City. Table 3-25 Persons with a Disability by Disability Type 2017 Number Percent Total disabled persons from survey data 1,996 100.0% Disability types for people Ages 5-64 (note: some people have more than one disability type) 791 39.6% Hearing Difficulty 167 8.4% Vision Difficulty 157 7.9% Cognitive Difficulty 349 17.5% Ambulatory Difficulty 249 12.5% Self-Care Difficulty 128 6.4% Independent Living Difficulty 210 10.5% Disability types for people Ages 65 and Over (note: some people have more than one disability type) 1,205 60.4% Hearing Difficulty 620 31.1% Vision Difficulty 89 4.5% Cognitive Difficulty 168 8.4% Ambulatory Difficulty 641 32.1% Self-Care Difficulty 125 6.3% Independent Living Difficulty 281 14.1% Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, ACS 2013–2017 Item 9.a. - Page 74 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 57 There are two major housing related problems facing persons with a disability: the need for housing that meets particular physical needs (e.g., wheelchair accessibility, etc.) and monetary needs. Because of limited job opportunities, many persons with disabilities have incomes below the median. Table 3-26 identifies the employment status of disabled persons in the city. About 22 percent of the population is not in the labor force, of which, about a quarter report having a disability. Table 3-26 Persons with a Disability by Employment Status, 2013-2017 2017 Number Percent Total Population Ages 18 to 64 10,458 100.0% In the labor force 8,161 78.0% Employed 7,800 74.6% With a disability 224 2.1% No disability 7,576 72.4% Unemployed 361 3.5% With a disability 11 0.1% No disability 350 3.3% Not in the labor force 2,297 22.0% With a disability 529 5.1% No disability 1,768 16.9% Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD Data Packet, ACS 2013–2017 Persons with disabilities living in Arroyo Grande may have varying housing needs depending on the nature and severity of their disability. Persons with physical disabilities generally require modifications to housing units, such as wheelchair ramps, elevators, wide doorways, accessible cabinetry, modified fixtures and appliances. If the disability prevents the person from operating a vehicle, then proximity to services and access to public transportation are important. If the disability prevents the person from working or limits their income, then the cost of housing and needed modifications can be significant. Because physical handicaps vary, this group rarely gravitates toward a single service organization. This makes estimating the number of persons and specific needs difficult. For example, the physical modification of housing may not be necessary to accommodate persons with mental disabilities, but such persons will generally require special services and monetary support. Because jobs and income are often limited for persons with disabilities, affordable housing is important. Issues related to those with a mental disability would suggest that there is a need for apartment or other housing complexes that are reserved or designed to accommodate persons requiring extra assistance. If the person is unable to drive, access to public transportation is very important. Although the City has not adopted a reasonable accommodation policy or ordinance for persons with disabilities, the City has mechanisms that allow for the modification of standards and retrofitting to increase the suitability of homes to accommodate persons living with special needs, including those with disabilities. In addition, the City proposes Program K.2-1 to create a reasonable accommodation procedure for the City. Item 9.a. - Page 75 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 58 Developmentally Disabled According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code a “developmental disability” is defined as a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual, which includes mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to mental retardation or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with mental retardation but does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment; however, more severely disabled individuals may require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult. The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) provided community-based services to about 243,000 persons in 2019 with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. The Tri-County Regional Center (TCRC) is one of 21 regional centers in California that provides point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities in Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. The center is a private, non-profit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. In 2019, TCRC provided services to approximately 11,887 persons in the Tri-County area. Table 3-27 shows the number of individuals served by TCRC in the 93420 zip code. While this is the primary zip code for the City, the 93420 zip code includes unincorporated areas within the County. Table 3-27 Developmentally Disabled Persons Location 0–17 years 18+ years Total 93420 101 162 263 Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD DATA Packet, Updated Data Profile 2019 There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a development disability: rent-subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, renting using Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, and HUD housing. Similar to the needs of disabled residents and households mentioned above, the design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, the availability of group living opportunities, and consideration of the affordability of housing for people with disabilities living on a fixed income represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all, new multifamily housing (as required by state and federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Table 3-28 provides information about developmentally disabled persons’ places of residence in Arroyo Grande. Item 9.a. - Page 76 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 59 Table 3-28 Developmentally Disabled Residents by Residence Type Community Care Home Parent/ Guardian Independent Living Intermediate Care Facility Foster/Family Home Other Total 93420 21 190 23 22 <11 <11 >256 Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD DATA Packet, Updated Data Profile 2019 Local and county programs and services provide housing and living assistance for disabled residents. Locally, the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo administers the Housing Choice Voucher program, commonly known as Section 8, which provides long-term rental assistance for families with children, elderly and disabled individuals, as well as families with members who are disabled. Currently, the agency provides 194 Section 8 vouchers to low-income households in Arroyo Grande and maintains a waiting list that is currently closed. Additionally, Transitions-Mental Health Association (TMHA), a nonprofit organization serving San Luis Obispo County, provides housing assistance and housing to disabled individuals. HASLO and TMHA have partnered over the years to provide case management services to homeless/disabled individuals. To assist in the housing needs for persons with disabilities, the City will continue to implement program K.1-1 to encourage creation of housing for persons with disabilities. Suggested models include coordinating housing activities and outreach with TCRC and other local agencies, encouraging housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing developments for persons with disabilities, especially persons with developmental disabilities, and assisting individuals in locating and maintaining suitable housing. Homeless The 2019 San Luis Obispo County Homeless Census and Survey provided a “point-in-time” survey of the homeless population in South San Luis Obispo County, which includes the cities and communities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Oceano, Arroyo Grande, and Nipomo. The homeless population in South County represents 14 percent of the total homeless population in the County, which was reported at 1,483 people. Thirty homeless persons were counted in the City of Arroyo Grande in 2019. Of the total homeless population in San Luis Obispo County, 99 percent were over the age of 18. The primary homeless services organization in the South County is the 5 Cities Homeless Coalition. The 5 Cities Homeless Coalition does not operate a shelter but provides education, counseling, and financial support to homeless individuals. Since 1989, the Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County’s (CAPSLO) Homeless Services program has been working to meet the needs of the homeless in the County as well, offering emergency housing, on-site information, referral services, and assistance in finding permanent housing. This organization operates the Prado Road Campus in San Luis Obispo, which provides 100 beds nightly year-round with additional services. An additional 25 to 40 beds per night are added through the Interfaith Coalition for the Homeless, bringing the overflow total to more than 25,000 shelter nights provided per year. There are several other organizations in the County that provide services and housing for the homeless, including several churches. Table 3-29 identifies the homeless facilities throughout the county. There are 354 adult-only beds in the county, which serves the largest group of homeless people in the county. Item 9.a. - Page 77 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 60 Table 3-29 Homelessness, San Luis Obispo County Facility Type Family Units Family Beds Adult-Only Beds Seasonal Emergency Shelter 18 71 83 124 Transitional Housing 8 42 10 n/a Permanent Supportive Housing 62 62 230 n/a Rapid Rehousing 15 15 31 n/a Total 103 190 354 124 Source: Sixth-Cycle HCD DATA Packet, Updated Data Profile 2019 These resources are provided by the City as well as by the support of the Homeless Services Oversight Council of San Luis Obispo County. The City declared a homeless shelter crisis in 2018, citing a lack of homeless shelters in the city and neighboring cities. The City is currently seeking block grant funding from the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) in partnership with the 5 Cities Homeless Coalition and People’s Self-Help Housing to support construction of an emergency shelter in neighboring Grover Beach. San Luis Obispo County has also incorporated a 10-year Plan to End Homelessness that was completed in 2008. This plan includes goals in housing attainability, ongoing services for the homeless, and prevention action to divert individuals from becoming part of the cycle of homelessness. 3.6 At-Risk Housing Units As shown in Table 3-30, Arroyo Grande has seven state and/or federally assisted housing developments that provide 283 affordable housing units. Table 3-30 Inventory of Assisted Units Projects Total Units Affordable Assisted Units Funding Source Earliest Date of Conversion Cawelti Court 28 28 Tax Credits 2050 Oak Forest Apartments/Elm Village 20 19 Tax Credits 2051 Juniper Street Apartments 14 15 Tax Credits 2054 Cortina D’Arroyo 108 107 Tax Credits 2060 Courtland Street Apartments 36 35 Tax Credits 2068 Halcyon Collective 20 19 Tax Credits 2072 Parkview Manor 61 61 HUD 2031 Total 287 283 — — Source: HCD SLO Housing Element Update Data Profile 2019 and California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), 2020 California Housing Element law requires all jurisdictions to include a study of all state and/or federally assisted low-income housing units that may at some future time be lost to the affordable inventory by the expiration of some type of affordability restrictions. The law requires that the analysis and study cover a 10-year period beginning at the start of the Housing Element planning period, that is, December 31, 2020, through December 31, 2030. At-risk units are financially subsidized low-income housing projects that may be at risk for conversion to market-rate because they are nearing the end of their subsidized contract. Such units are deemed “at risk” of being lost as affordable housing. Currently, no subsidized housing Item 9.a. - Page 78 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 61 units are considered at risk of converting to market-rate units within 10 years of the beginning of this Housing Element planning period. However, Program I.1-1 states that the City will maintain a list of all dwellings in the city that are subsidized by government funding or low-income housing developed through local regulations or incentives, and that the City will contact all property owners and notify them of the legal requirements to provide notice prior to the conversion of any units for lower-income households to market-rate units. Item 9.a. - Page 79 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 62 Item 9.a. - Page 80 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 63 CHAPTER 4 - HOUSING RESOURCES This chapter evaluates the availability of land and public services in Arroyo Grande to support future residential development. The chapter also summarizes financial resources available for affordable housing and energy conservation opportunities. 4.1 Regional Housing Needs Determinations State law requires councils of government to prepare Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plans (RHNAP) for all cities and counties within their jurisdiction. The RHNAP for San Luis Obispo County, which includes the City of Arroyo Grande, was prepared by SLOCOG and adopted in August 2019. The RHNAP is intended to anticipate growth, and therefore allow the City to plan for this anticipated growth based on the RHNA. It also is intended to ensure that adequate sites and zoning exist to address anticipated housing demand during the planning period (December 31, 2020, through December 31, 2028). In addition, the RHNAP sets targets to ensure the availability of sites to accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of socioeconomic segments of a community. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65580 et seq., SLOCOG developed a methodology for estimating the future housing needs of the county, which was then allocated to each jurisdiction. This methodology took the housing need for the entire region (10,810 housing units), and weighted that figure in order to improve intraregional jobs/housing balance. The methodology distributed the regional figure based on the city’s proportional share of population and jobs (weighting 75 percent to population and 25 percent to jobs). This methodology also excluded four unique, statewide employers from the figures because these employers would result in a disproportionate allocation; the employers excluded were Atascadero State Hospital, the California Men’s Colony, Cal Poly, and the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. According to data from the California DOF, the City of Arroyo Grande is projected to comprise six percent of the region’s population, and six percent of the region’s jobs. These factors, when applied to the methodology, resulted in a total allocation of 692 housing units needed to accommodate the anticipated population growth in the City between December 31, 2020, and December 31, 2028. Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (Section 50093, et seq.) the RHNAP divided the specified housing allocation into four income groups. The groups are defined as percentages of County median income. Table 4-1 displays the criteria for the income groups. As noted earlier in the element, half of the RHNA number for very low income is assumed to apply to the extremely low-income category. Table 4-1 Income Group Very Low Household income is less than 50% of the County median income. Low Household income is between 51% and 80% of the County median income. Moderate Household income is between 81% and 120% of the County median income. Above Moderate Household income is greater than 120% of the County median income. Source: 2020 HCD Income Definitions Item 9.a. - Page 81 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 64 4.2 2020–2028 Regional Housing Needs Allocation As noted, the total number of dwelling units that need to be accommodated during the planning period for Arroyo Grande is 692 housing units. The four income group categories and their respective allocation of housing units needed, derived from U.S. Census data and the ACS, are outlined in Table 4-2. The combined very low and low-income categories make up 40 percent of the housing allocation. Table 4-2 Housing Need Allocation by Income Category Number Percent Share Very Low1 170 24.6% Low 107 15.5% Moderate 124 17.9% Above Moderate 291 42.0% Total 692 100% Source: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan 2019, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, U.S. Census/ACS Notes: 1 As noted earlier in the element, 50 percent of the very low income RHNA is assumed to be for extremely low-income households. According to HCD and based upon federal income standards, the median household income for a family of four in San Luis Obispo County was $97,300 in 2020. Table 4-3 indicates the income limits or thresholds by income category for 2020 along with the median income for each household size. Table 4-3 Income Limits, County of San Luis Obispo Number of Persons in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely low-income $20,400 $23,300 $26,200 $29,100 $31,450 $35,160 $39,640 $44,120 Very low- income $33,950 $38,800 $43,650 $48,500 $52,400 $56,300 $60,150 $64,050 Low- income $54,350 $62,100 $69,850 $77,600 $83,850 $90,050 $96,250 $102,450 Median Income $68,100 $77,850 $87,550 $97,300 $105,100 $112,850 $120,650 $128,450 Moderate Income $81,750 $93,400 $105,100 $116,750 $126,100 $135,450 $144,750 $154,100 Source: HCD 2020. Over the period from January 1, 2019 to September 2020, 118 above-moderate income primary units, 29 accessory dwelling units, and a HASLO low-income housing project comprising 20 deed- restricted low-income units were constructed or permitted in Arroyo Grande. In addition, two very- low income units were entitled as part of a project receiving a density bonus. Fourteen of the accessory dwelling units constructed or approved are assumed to be available to low-income families, while 15 accessory dwelling units constructed or approved are assumed to be moderate- Item 9.a. - Page 82 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 65 income units. The affordability assumptions about the accessory dwelling units being counted in these income categories are included in the subsection later in this section. The City continues to use funds from the City’s Affordable Housing in-Lieu Fee Program when feasible to finance future affordable housing projects. The City strives to make funding available to local affordable housing non-profit organizations to assist with housing projects when possible. However, the level of funding the City can provide is not sufficient to address direct and associated costs of providing this level of housing without increased state or federal financial assistance. After accounting for permit and construction activity in the period from January 2018 to December 2019, the City has a remaining RHNA of 523 units. Of these remaining units, 241 are lower-income units (see Table 4-4). Table 4-5 shows the City’s RHNA, units permitted or constructed since January 1, 2019, and the vacant and non-vacant land available for residential development. The bottom row shows the RHNA remaining after those units are subtracted. It is important to note that the City is not responsible for the actual construction of the units in the RHNA. The City is, however, responsible for creating a regulatory environment in which the private market can build units affordable to extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and above moderate households to meet the City’s allocation. This includes the creation, adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies, development standards, and/or economic incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units. Table 4-4 City Share of Regional Housing Need 2019–2028 Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total (added across) 2019–2028 RHNA 85 85 107 124 291 692 Units Constructed/ Approved Since 1/1/2019 0 2 20 0 118 140 Accessory Dwelling Units Constructed/Approved 0 0 14 15 0 29 Remaining 2019–2028 RHNA 241 109 173 523 Source: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, City of Arroyo Grande 2020 Item 9.a. - Page 83 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 66 As Table 4-5 shows, the City can meet all its remaining RHNA with available vacant and non- vacant sites and accessory dwelling unit development potential. The City has vacant and non- vacant land available to accommodate 330 units. Of these, 124 units would be located on sites that can be developed to accommodate the lower-income allocation. Additionally, the City has identified accessory dwelling unit development potential of 236 units. Vacant and non-vacant land and accessory dwelling unit potential are discussed in Section 4.3. 4.3 Land Availability State housing law requires that the housing element provide an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for intensification and/or redevelopment. The purpose of this requirement is to identify sites that could accommodate residential development as set forth by the RHNAP. This analysis is not a construction quota or an anticipated list of projects that will be constructed, given that the law recognizes that there may be limitations that would affect residential development, as well as the fact that private development and market forces affect the level of housing construction. Table 4-6 provides a list of vacant and non-vacant sites available for housing construction. Figure 4-1 presents a housing opportunity inventory map with locations for the sites discussed in Table 4-6. The City’s Land Use Element includes a “Mixed-Use” land use category that encompasses approximately 85 percent (254 acres) of all the commercially zoned land within the City. Development standards for the Village Core Downtown (VCD) and Village Mixed-Use (VMU) districts allow densities of up to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other mixed-use districts include Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU), Fair Oaks Mixed-Use (FOMU), and Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU), Office Mixed-Use (OMU), Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU), and Highway Mixed-Use (HMU). Development standards for most of these mixed-use districts have a range of maximum densities from 15 to 25 dwelling units per acre, with the exceptions in the IMU and TMU zoning districts, whose maximum Table 4-5 Remaining RHNA, 2019–2028 Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total (added across) Subtotal remaining RHNA 241 113 173 523 Vacant Land Inventory1 66 8 59 133 Non-Vacant Land Inventory1 58 0 139 197 Accessory Dwelling Unit Potential 0 0 120 116 0 236 Total Additional Units from Vacant and Non-Vacant Land and ADU Potential 244 124 198 566 Surplus 2019–2028 RHNA 3 15 25 Notes: 1 Details about these sites are found in Table 4-6 Source: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan 2019, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, City of Arroyo Grande 2020. Item 9.a. - Page 84 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 67 density is subject to discretionary review. Exceptions to minimum density requirements include GMU and FOMU zoning districts, which have minimum densities set at 75 percent of maximum. Most of the land (the exception is the Regional Commercial zoning district) within the City is zoned for some level of residential development with minimum densities. The City recognizes that the state requires land zoned at 20 units per acre or greater to meet the extremely low, very low-, and low-income housing allocation. With the flexible density for mixed- use (MU) zoned areas, the City is able to meet or exceed the 20 units per acre. There is no minimum percent of a mixed-use project that must be non-residential, but some portion needs to be non- residential. Recent projects have all had a residential component and have all been developed as almost all residential. For example, the project located at the intersection of Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Road achieved a density of 25 units per acre in the OMU zoning district. The project was less than 1-percent commercial, demonstrating that a nearly 100-percent residential project can be achieved in the OMU zoning district. Based on this recent project, the development potential is assumed to be 95-percent residential for the sites included to address extremely low, very low, and low-income RHNA in the OMU and FOMU zoning districts that have these same regulations. The HMU zoning district allows 20 units per acre for an all residential or mixed use project. Other recently approved or constructed high-density residential projects in the mixed-use zoning districts include the 1136 E. Grand project, which will demolish existing structures and construct a 41,000-square-foot development with a 2,220-square-foot medical office structure and twenty- two residential units, two of which will be deed restricted for very-low income households. The project has a density of 24 units per acre. The 1214 E. Grand project, which will also demolish an existing commercial structure and construct a 21,700-square-foot development with a 400-square- foot commercial structure and ten residential units. This project has a density of 16 units per acre. The City has demonstrated that it is flexible in approving higher-density residential projects and that higher-density residential projects are being developed as part of mixed-use projects. Vacant Land The current vacant land inventory (Table 4-6) identifies the potential for 133 units. Arroyo Grande has over 70 acres of vacant land in the PD, RR, RS, SF, VMU, and OMU zoning districts. Most of these sites are expected to accommodate above-moderate-income households. A map showing the locations of vacant and non-vacant sites is shown as Figure 4-1. Non-Vacant Land The City also has non-vacant sites that are underutilized and have potential to redevelop for various densities of housing during the planning period. All of the non-vacant sites included in Table 4-6 to address lower income RHNA are zoned to allow at least 20 units per acre in a mixed- use project as described earlier in this section. HASLO has agreed to a purchase price for the parcels at 700 Oak Park Boulevard listed in Table 4-6. The site includes four parcels, one vacant and three non-vacant. They all have the same owner. HASLO has proposed 66 low-income units, which can be accomplished through a density bonus. The site is in the OMU zoning district, which allows multifamily housing in a mixed-use project at a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre with a CUP. The other four non-vacant parcels to address the lower income RHNA are all underutilized and appropriately zoned to allow a mixed-use project with high density residential during the planning Item 9.a. - Page 85 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 68 period. The precedent projects discussed in earlier sections are the type of project that would likely develop on these sites over the course of the planning period. Details about each site are provided in Table 4-6. Additional non-vacant sites are included in Table 4-6 to address the above-moderate income RHNA. The sites include parcels in the SF, RH, AG, MFA, PF, OMU, and FOMU zoning districts. These sites vary in size and allowed density and may be suitable for a variety of types of residential projects, and some allow higher densities. However, these sites are not considered as strong of candidates to redevelop as affordable or high density housing as the non-vacant sites listed to address the lower income RHNA. As a result, they are listed in the above-moderate income section of Table 4-6 as market rate or above moderate-income units because these types of units have a greater likelihood of being developed. Accessory Dwelling Units In 2018, 2019 and 2020, City planning permit records indicate that an average of 15 accessory dwelling units were permitted per year. In 2018, 13 ADUs were permitted, in 2019, 15 ADUs were permitted and as of October 2020, 14 ADUs have been permitted. The 14 ADUs so far in 2020 have been extrapolated to 17 ADUs permitted through the end of 2020. Because of efforts the City is already making to promote and facilitate ADUs and additional efforts committed to in the programs in this housing element, it is assumed that an additional 236 accessory dwelling units will be permitted between now and December 2028. In the fall of 2019, San Luis Obispo County conducted a countywide market study of accessory dwelling units that included all of the cities and unincorporated areas within the county. The market study found that accessory dwelling units currently available for rent in San Luis Obispo County are affordable to a variety of income groups and household sizes. The average market rate for an accessory dwelling unit ranges from about $800 per month for a 350-square-foot accessory dwelling unit to up to $1,495 per month for 550- square-foot accessory dwelling unit, placing many market-rate accessory dwelling units in the affordable range for low-income households. In addition, accessory dwelling unit research conducted by the University of California Berkeley’s (UC Berkeley’s) Center for Community Innovation (Chapple et al. 2017) indicates that 40 percent of accessory dwelling units are typically rented to family members or friends at either no cost or below-market rental rates. Based on the combination of the countywide market study analysis and the Chapple industry research, of the 236 accessory dwelling units projected to be built in Arroyo Grande between 2020 and 2028, 120 are anticipated to be affordable to low-income households and 116 are anticipated to be affordable to moderate-income households. The Arroyo Grande accessory dwelling unit regulations encourage this housing type and allow flexibility in their development. The regulations may assist homeowners in purchasing a home, provide security for people living alone, provide quarters for relatives, make more efficient use of infrastructure, increase the diversity of people living in neighborhoods, and offer an opportunity for low- and moderate-income renters. Arroyo Grande last updated its regulations for accessory dwelling units in 2017. Program A.2-1 calls for updates to the accessory dwelling unit regulations to comply with changes to state law since 2017 and for other efforts to promote and facilitate ADUs. Programs A.2-2 and A.3-3 also establish programs and efforts related to facilitating and making ADUs more affordable in Arroyo Grande. Item 9.a. - Page 86 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 69 Table 4-6 Land Inventory APN Address Site Size (Acres) Land Use Zoning District Maximum Density Maximum Dwelling Units Realistic Dwelling Units - 80% of Maximum Units Unless Noted Vacant or Non- Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories Affordable To Infrastructure Low Density Sites 007-019-015 318 Grace Lane 0.67 LD PD 1 unit/parcel 1.0 1 Vacant Per Reso 3732 Above Moderate Yes 007-781-055 Noyes Road 24.53 LD PD 2.5 10.0 8 Vacant Reso 3775 changed land use designation to Very-Low Density Planned Development Above Moderate Yes 007-781-056 Noyes Road 26.35 LD PD 2.5 11.0 8 Vacant Reso 3775 changed land use designation to Very-Low Density Planned Development Above Moderate Yes 007-851-034 737 Arabian Circle 0.61 LD PD 0.7 1.0 1 Vacant Per Reso 1745 approving Tract 1149 Above Moderate Yes 007-851-039 791 Arabian Circle 1.43 LD PD 0.7 1.0 1 Vacant Per Reso 1745 approving Tract 1149 Above Moderate Yes 007-015-018 164 Rodeo Drive 0.27 LMD PD 1 unit/parcel 1.0 1 Vacant Per Reso 2133 approving Tract 1390 Above Moderate Yes 007-784-008 252 Via Bandolero 0.58 LMD PD 0.9 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-785-022 534 Calle Cuervo 0.74 LMD PD 0.9 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes PD Totals 55.18 22 007-061-004 No address assigned 0.59 LMD RR 1 0.6 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-061-010 No address assigned 0.52 LMD RR 1 0.5 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes RR Totals 1.10 2 007-291-033 215 Cindy Way 1.18 LD RS 2.5 2.9 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-291-038 265 Cindy Way 0.98 LD RS 2.5 2.5 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-291-039 276 Cindy Way 1.15 LD RS 2.5 2.9 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-291-042 221 Cindy Way 1.36 LD RS 2.5 3.4 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-211-007 210 Tally Ho Road 0.59 LMD RS 2.5 1.5 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-254-062 576 Paseo Street 0.19 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-254-063 582 Paseo Street 0.21 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-002 366 Stagecoach Road 0.29 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-029 416 Stagecoach Road 0.26 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-030 410 Stagecoach Road 0.24 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-031 400 Stagecoach Road 0.24 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-033 355 Gularte Road 0.25 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-035 323 Gularte Road 0.26 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-036 302 Zogata Way 0.25 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-037 314 Zogata Way 0.26 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-038 328 Zogata Way 0.26 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes Item 9.a. - Page 87 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 70 Table 4-6 Land Inventory APN Address Site Size (Acres) Land Use Zoning District Maximum Density Maximum Dwelling Units Realistic Dwelling Units - 80% of Maximum Units Unless Noted Vacant or Non- Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories Affordable To Infrastructure 007-471-039 340 Zogata Way 0.28 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-471-040 346 Zogata Way 0.24 LMD RS 2.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-013-006 1575 Hillcrest Drive 0.42 LMD RS 2.5 1.1 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes RS Totals 8.90 22 077-021-010 1457 Hillcrest Drive 0.36 LMD SF 4.5 1.6 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-511-002 No address assigned 0.29 MD SF 4.5 1.3 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-548-029 No address assigned 0.75 MD SF 4.5 3.4 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-548-032 No address assigned 0.45 MD SF 4.5 2.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-548-038 225 Whitely Street 0.15 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-572-014 702 Myrtle Street 0.17 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-126-009 1406 Strawberry Avenue 0.16 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-151-014 1278 Cedar Street 0.14 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-223-070 185 Wood Place 0.16 MD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-353-014 902 The Pike 0.26 MD SF 4.5 1.2 1 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-163-001 Cedar & Aspen Streets 0.60 MD SF 4.5 2.7 2 Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-571-007 795 E CHERRY AVE 0.36 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 1.6 1 Non-Vacant These 10 parcels are adjacent and considered one potential site. This site is subject to Neighborhood Plan requirements to coordinate infrastructure improvements and circulation. Existing use is low density single-family development under multiple ownerships. Surrounding uses include single-family residences and active agricultural land. Site constraints include creek setback and agricultural buffer. Above Moderate Yes 007-571-010 NO ADDRESS ASSIGNED 0.02 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-571-011 444 LIERLY LN 1.47 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 6.6 2 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-571-012 404 LIERLY LN 0.29 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 1.3 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-571-013 447 LIERLY LN 2.74 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 12.3 6 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-571-015 841 E CHERRY AVE 1.98 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 8.9 4 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-571-016 441 LIERLY LN 0.32 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 1.4 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-571-017 811 E CHERRY AVE 0.93 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 4.2 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-571-018 835 E CHERRY AVE 3.92 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 17.6 7 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-571-019 831 E CHERRY AVE 0.64 SFR-MD w/ NP overlay SF 4.5 2.9 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes Item 9.a. - Page 88 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 71 Table 4-6 Land Inventory APN Address Site Size (Acres) Land Use Zoning District Maximum Density Maximum Dwelling Units Realistic Dwelling Units - 80% of Maximum Units Unless Noted Vacant or Non- Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories Affordable To Infrastructure 077-192-076 1051 Ash Street 0.22 CF/SF SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-192-077 1047 Ash Street 0.21 CF/SF SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-192-078 1045 Ash Street 0.22 CF/SF SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-192-083 1029 Ash Street 0.77 CF/SF SF 4.5 3.5 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 007-501-012 513 Ide Street 1.63 C/OS SF/PF 4.5 7.3 5 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-203-009 991 Dodson Way 0.25 VHD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-203-019 279 Alder 0.19 VHD SF 4.5 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes SF Totals 19.66 49 006-095-025 Valley Road 7.32 SFR LD RH 0.67 4.9 4 Non-Vacant Owned by Judith Haddox Above Moderate Yes RH Totals 7.32 4 007-531-002 1010 Huasna Rd. 0.25 AG AG Determined through discretionary review for farmworker housing Determined through discretionary review for farmworker housing 4 Non-Vacant These two parcels are adjacent and considered one potential site. Possible Farm Working Housing: Farm worker housing is allowed on this site. Density of farm worker housing is determined through discretionary review. Another option is to rezone to MF (9 du/ac). Surrounding uses include a mobile home park and agricultural uses. Owners are Dunn Douglass Family Trust and Charles Cabassi. Above Moderate Yes 007-531-005 980 Huasna Rd. 1.61 AG AG 10 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes AG Totals 1.86 14 077-241-013 406 S. Elm St 0.82 MFR-HD MFA 14 11.5 6 Non-Vacant These three parcels are adjacent and considered one potential site. Special needs or high density. Current uses include single family residence, residential care facility (Arroyo Grande Care Center owned by Compass Health, Inc.) and Coastal Christian School (grades K-12). Property owners are Mathias Family Trust, McMullen Juanita Living Trust, and Landmark Missionary Baptist Church. Estimated 25% of property developed at maximum density. Above Moderate Yes 077-241-035 1212 Farroll Ave. 3.94 O OMU 15 59.1 25 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-241-062 1220 Farroll Ave. 5.08 CF/SF PF Determined through discretionary review Determined through discretionary review 29 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes MF/PF/OMU Totals 077-111-009 1126 Grand Ave 0.49 MU FOMU 15 7.4 1 Non-Vacant Assume back lot and infill development. Multiple parcels along Grand Avenue. Existing use is strip mall development. Surrounding uses are primarily other similar commercial uses. The subject properties are under multiple ownerships. Parcels without units assigned to them would be combined with other larger parcels if development occurred. Above Moderate Yes 077-111-011 1106 Grand Ave 0.64 MU FOMU 15 9.6 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-111-012 1092 Grand Ave 0.48 MU FOMU 15 7.2 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-111-014 No Address Assigned 0.44 MU FOMU 15 6.6 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes Item 9.a. - Page 89 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 72 Table 4-6 Land Inventory APN Address Site Size (Acres) Land Use Zoning District Maximum Density Maximum Dwelling Units Realistic Dwelling Units - 80% of Maximum Units Unless Noted Vacant or Non- Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories Affordable To Infrastructure 077-111-057 Multiple Addresses 0.52 MU FOMU 15 7.8 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-112-001 1108 Grand Ave 0.02 MU FOMU 15 1.0 0 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-112-002 1112 Grand Ave 0.02 MU FOMU 15 1.0 0 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-112-003 1116 Grand Ave. 0.02 MU FOMU 15 1.0 0 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-112-004 1118 Grand Ave 0.06 MU FOMU 15 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-112-006 1118 Grand Ave 0.34 MU FOMU 15 5.1 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-112-005 1124 Grand Ave 0.06 MU FOMU 15 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-113-015 1140 Grand Ave 0.46 MU FOMU 15 6.9 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-211-010 1151 Grand Ave 0.19 MU FOMU 15 2.9 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-211-015 1147 E Grand Ave 0.63 MU FOMU 15 9.5 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-211-018 1139 Grand Ave 0.63 MU FOMU 15 9.5 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-211-023 1119 E Grand Ave 0.21 MU FOMU 15 3.2 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-211-024 1105 Grand Ave 0.25 MU FOMU 15 3.8 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-211-035 1105 E Grand Ave 0.14 MU FOMU 15 2.1 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-211-036 No Address Assigned 0.03 MU FOMU 15 1.0 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-211-037 1069 E Grand Ave 0.84 MU FOMU 15 12.6 2 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-221-002 1045 Grand Ave 0.22 MU FOMU 15 3.3 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-221-003 1031 E Grand Ave 0.64 MU FOMU 15 9.6 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-221-026 1023 Grand Ave 0.22 MU FOMU 15 3.3 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-221-027 1017 Grand Ave 0.27 MU FOMU 15 4.1 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-221-028 1013 E Grand Ave 0.55 MU FOMU 15 8.3 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-221-036 1025 Grand Ave 0.22 MU FOMU 15 3.3 1 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 077-221-037 1053 Grand Ave 0.82 MU FOMU 15 12.3 2 Non-Vacant Above Moderate Yes 9.41 25 Low Density Totals 113.27 198 Medium Density Sites 007-501-036 510 E Branch Street 0.24 VC VMU 15 3.6 2 Vacant Moderate Yes 007-501-037 516 E Branch Street 0.16 VC VMU 15 2.5 1 Vacant Moderate Yes 007-541-004 122 Nelson Street 0.18 VC VMU 15 2.7 2 Vacant Moderate Yes 007-541-025 126 Nelson Street 0.16 VC VMU 15 2.4 1 Vacant Moderate Yes 007-541-040 117 Poole Street 0.23 VC VMU 15 3.5 2 Vacant Moderate Yes Item 9.a. - Page 90 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 73 Table 4-6 Land Inventory APN Address Site Size (Acres) Land Use Zoning District Maximum Density Maximum Dwelling Units Realistic Dwelling Units - 80% of Maximum Units Unless Noted Vacant or Non- Vacant Notes/Site Constraints Income Categories Affordable To Infrastructure Medium Density Totals 0.98 8 High Density Sites 077-011-010 through -13 700 Oak Park Boulevard 2.26 MU OMU 20 42.9 66 One vacant and three non- vacant parcels This site is made up of 4 adjacent parcels, one vacant and 3 non-vacant with the same owner. Multi-family allowed with CUP in a mixed use project. HASLO is in the process of purchasing these parcels to build affordable housing. They are planning to build 66 units (through a density bonus). Extremely Low, Very Low, Low Yes 077-204-028 280 S Halcyon 0.83 Office Professional OMU 20 15.8 12 Non-Vacant Multi-family allowed with CUP in a mixed use project. The property is developed with a small single-family residence and therefore underutilized. The surrounding uses include commercial and high density residential development. The owner has expressed interest in developing housing on the parcel. Realistic capacity on this parcel is calculated as 80 % of 95 % of maximum density to account for an estimated 5% of the project on this site being commercial uses. Extremely Low, Very Low, Low Yes 077-211-022 1125 E Grand 0.85 Mixed Use FOMU 25 20.2 16 Non-Vacant Multi-family allowed with CUP in a mixed use project. This parcel is nearly vacant with a few very small, abandoned structures. The surrounding uses are primarily other similar commercial uses. Realistic capacity on this parcel is calculated as 80 % of 95 % of maximum density to account for an estimated 5% of the project on this site being commercial uses. Extremely Low, Very Low, Low Yes 077-221-031 1019 E Grand 0.75 Mixed Use FOMU 25 17.8 14 Non-Vacant Multi-family allowed with CUP in a mixed use project. This parcel has one single-family house on it with about half the parcel not built on. The surrounding uses are primarily commercial uses. Realistic capacity on this parcel is calculated as 80 % of 95 % of maximum density to account for an estimated 5% of the project on this site being commercial uses. Extremely Low, Very Low, Low Yes 006-311-063 601 E Grand 1.05 Mixed Use HMU 20 21.0 16 Non-Vacant Multi-family allowed with CUP in a 100% residential or mixed use project. This parcel is underutilized and is mostly paved and unpaved parking/vacant lot. There is one very small commercial structure about the size of a coffee stand which is in use as a locksmith business. The surrounding uses are commercial. Extremely Low, Very Low, Low Yes High Density Totals 5.74 124 Totals 119.99 330 Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2020. Item 9.a. - Page 91 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 74 Figure 4-1 Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory Map Item 9.a. - Page 92 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 75 4.4 Infrastructure Resources This section examines the availability and capacity of public facilities and services within the City that are essential to residential development. These include water, sewer, public safety, and schools. To comply with Senate Bill 1087, the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its Public Works Department so they can grant priority for water and sewer service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households. Water The City pumps groundwater and purchases treated surface water. Groundwater is pumped from two separate basins: the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and the Pismo Formation. The Santa Maria Basin is adjudicated, and the City currently has an allocation of 1,323 acre-feet per year (AFY) from that basin. The Pismo Formation is not adjudicated, and the City has established appropriative rights. The majority of the City’s supply is from Lopez Lake. The City has a contract with the County of San Luis Obispo Water Conservation and Flood Control District providing an entitlement of 2,290 AFY of treated surface water in normal conditions. The City’s current total water supply is 3,773 AFY. In calendar year 2019, the City used 2,138 acre-feet of water, which calculates to a per-capita consumption of 108 gallons per person per day. If the per-capita consumption remains at this level, the City’s buildout population of 20,000 would require an annual supply of 2,420 acre-feet, which can be met with the current water supply. In addition to the existing water supply, the Central Coast Blue project to supplement groundwater is anticipated to provide Arroyo Grande with 429 acre-feet of water annually. Table 4-7 shows the current and projected water supply through 2035. Table 4-7 Current and Projected Water Supply – Acre-feet per year (AFY) Water Supply Sources 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Groundwater – Santa Maria Groundwater Basin 1,323 1,323 1,3231 1,3231 1,3231 Groundwater – Pismo Formation 160 160 2002 2002 2002 County of San Luis Obispo Lopez Reservoir Project 2,290 2,290 2,2903 2,2903 2,2903 Total 3,773 3,773 4,242 4,242 4,242 Notes: 1 This amount will be adjusted lower based on the deep well index and the basin groundwater model during dry years and drought. 2 Well No. 11, planned to be installed in 2021, will provide an additional 40 AFY. 3 The water supply contract currently is undergoing changes that include storage rights to unused water. It is projected the 2,290 AFY entitlement will increase based on additional stored water during normal years. Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2020. The City continues to offer free plumbing retrofits, washing machine rebates, and commercial dishwashing machine rebates to customers. City customers have reduced their per-capita consumption rate by 34 percent since 2013, conserving 975 AFY. This effort, along with improved groundwater and surface water management, coupled with the Central Coast Blue recycled water project, will provide Arroyo Grande with a sustainable water supply for the foreseeable future. Item 9.a. - Page 93 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 76 The Municipal Code was revised during the 2013-2016 drought to City adopt emergency water shortage restrictions and regulations, along with permanent water conservation measures. The water system has increased capacity by building an additional 250,000-gallon storage tank for the Oro Pressure Zone. This zone now has two tanks storing up to 500,000 gallons. Several water main projects have been completed, replacing old 4-inch mains with new 8-inch mains. The current 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and Water System Master Plan provide guidance on the Capital Improvement Plan five-year document. The water distribution system has a hydraulic model that can be used to determine capacity issues for new development and required system upgrades. The water system is operated under a Water Supply Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. The permit requires monthly and annual reporting of water quality and system operation. Sewer The City operates a sewer collection system of approximately 68 miles of sewer main, 1,300 maintenance holes, and 5 sewer lift stations. The sewer system is operated under a collection system discharge permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, which includes the requirement of a Sewer System Management Plan completed every five years. The sewer system has a hydraulic model that can be used to determine capacity for new development projects. The Sewer System Master Plan provides recommended capital improvement projects for the five-year document. The need for the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District’s services is dependent on the land use approvals by the City. The City of Arroyo Grande anticipates growing at a 1 percent growth rate over the next 20 years. The Sanitation District facilities are in good condition and a plan to make capital improvements is currently being implemented. The City has sufficient wastewater infrastructure and capacity to serve the RHNA described earlier in Chapter 4. Public Safety The City of Arroyo Grande Police Department is responsible for law enforcement, investigations, and crime prevention programs within the City limits. The Five Cities Fire Authority was established in July 2010 by a joint powers agreement between the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Oceano Community Services District and is responsible for providing fire protection and medical response. The City historically has low levels of major crime or fire loss despite below- average police and fi re department staffing. There are no standards regarding appropriate or adequate numbers of officers per number of residents. Average response time within the City limits is between 4 to 6 minutes, which for some of the areas of the City is consistent with a recognized standard of 5 minutes. It is generally expected that police and fire resources will improve with additional development that generates increased tax revenues. However, with the recent shifts of local tax revenues to the state, and decreasing state revenues being provided to local governments, additional development may cause a decrease in public safety for the community. Schools School facilities for Arroyo Grande are provided by the Lucia Mar Unified School District, which provides educational services in the South County Area, which includes Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Oceano, Nipomo, and the remaining unincorporated county. The District operates and Item 9.a. - Page 94 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 77 maintains 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and New Tech High School. With the exception of Nipomo High, recent studies have indicated that most of the schools were built in the 1950s and 1960s and thus may be subject to needed renovation. Information provided in the Arroyo Grande General Plan Environmental Impact Report adopted in 1991 indicated that many of the schools were operating at an over capacity level. With the opening of Nipomo High in 2002, that high school level capacity was resolved. In 2016, voters in the Lucia Mar School District approved Measure I, authorizing up to $170,000,000 in general obligation (GO) bond funds, which contributed renovation funds and modernization to Nipomo High Schools, Lopez High School, and Arroyo Grande High School. 4.5 Financial Resources Many state programs exist to provide cities, communities, and counties financial assistance in the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of units for housing. HCD identifies and provides detailed information on the grants and loans available for affordable and workforce housing, some of which are listed in Table 4-8. HCD and other state agencies identify funding and programs for housing. Certification of a jurisdiction’s housing element is required for eligibility for many state funding sources. Table 4-8 Local Financial Resources Funding Source Description Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) The AHSC funds land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects that support infill and compact development and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CalHome Program CalHOME makes grants to local public agencies and nonprofit corporations to assist first-time homebuyers become or remain homeowners through deferred-payment loans. Funds can also be used to assist in the development of multiple-unit ownership projects. California Emergency Solutions and Housing (CESH) The CESH Program provides grant funds to eligible applicants for eligible activities to assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Eligible applicants are Administrative Entities (AEs; local governments, non- profit organizations, or unified funding agencies) designated by the Continuum of Care (CoC) to administer CESH funds in their service area. Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF) GSAF was seeded with $23 million from the Department’s Affordable Housing Innovation Fund. Combined with matching funds, GSAF makes up to five-year loans to developers. Housing Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) HOME assists cities, counties, and non-profit community housing development organizations (CHDOs) to create and retain affordable housing for lower-income renters or owners. At least 50 percent of the amount is awarded to rural applicants and 15 percent is set aside for CHDOs. Funds are available in California communities that do not receive HOME funding directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing for a Health California (HHC) HHC provides funding on a competitive basis to deliver supportive housing opportunities to developers using the federal National Housing Trust Funds (NHTF) allocations for operating reserve grants and capital loans. Housing-Related Parks Program The Housing-Related Parks Program funds the creation of new park and recreation facilities or improvement of existing park and recreation Item 9.a. - Page 95 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 78 Funding Source Description facilities that are associated with rental and ownership projects that are affordable to very low- and low-income households. Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG) IIG provides grant funding for infrastructure improvements for new infill housing in residential and/or mixed-use projects. Funds are made available through a competitive application process. Joe Serna, Jr., Farmworker Housing Grant (FWHG) FWHG makes grants and loans for development or rehabilitation of rental and owner-occupied housing for agricultural workers with priority for lower-income households Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grants The LEAP program assists cities and counties with planning for housing through providing over the counter, non-competitive planning grants. Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF) Helps finance local housing trust funds dedicated to the creation or preservation of affordable housing. Mobile Home Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP) Funds awarded to mobile-home park tenant organizations to convert mobile-home parks to resident ownership. Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) MHP makes low-interest, long-term deferred-payment permanent loans to developers of affordable multifamily rental and transitional housing projects for lower-income households. National Housing Trust Fund National Housing Trust Fund is a permanent federal program with dedicated source(s) of funding not subject to the annual appropriations. The funds can be used to increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing, with an emphasis on rental housing for extremely low-income households (ELI households, with incomes of 30 percent of area median or less). No Place Like Home The No Place Like Home Program will have $2 billion in bond proceeds to invest in the development of permanent supportive housing for persons who are in need of mental health services and are experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness, or who are at risk of chronic homelessness. Pet Assistance and Support (PAS) Program Pet Assistance and Support provides funds to homeless shelters for shelter, food and basic veterinary services for pets owned by individuals experiencing homelessness. Predevelopment Loan Program Provide predevelopment capital loans to finance the start of low- income housing projects. California Homebuyer’s Down Payment Assistance Program (CHDAP) Collaboration with lenders to offer below market rate down-payment loans. Affordable Housing Partnership Program (AHPP) This program allows borrowers to combine a CalHFA first mortgage loan with down payment and/or closing cost assistance from an Affordable Housing Program Partner. Housing Enabled by Local Partnerships (HELP) HELP Program and other below-market-rate financing and deferred loans for local government and non-profits producing affordable housing development. California Housing Loan Insurance Fund (CaHLIF) Provides primary mortgage insurance for hard-to-qualify borrowers, expanding home ownership opportunities. California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Conventional Loans Various programs providing lower-cost loans, such as a 30-year fixed, interest-only PLUS, 40-year fixed Item 9.a. - Page 96 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 79 Funding Source Description CalHFA Down-Payment Assistance Various programs providing loans for down payments, such as California Homebuyer's Down-payment Assistance Program (CHDAP) Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Section 811 Project Rental Assistance offers long-term project-based rental assistance funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through a collaborative partnership among the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). Self-Help Builder Assistance Program Provides a source of financing to nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporations who use self-help type construction for affordable housing. Builder-Lock Program Builders/Developers may purchase forward commitments for permanent first mortgage financing for CalHFA-eligible borrowers tied to their construction/marketing program at single-family new-home developments anywhere in the state. Mortgage Credit Certificate Federal tax credit for low- and moderate-income homebuyers who have not owned a home in the past three years. California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC): Low- Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) The CTCAC administers the federal and state LIHTC Programs. Both programs were created to promote private investment in affordable rental housing for low-income Californians. California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC): Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits (HRTCs) CTCAC and the California Office of Historic Preservation also administer the HRTC program, which provide a 10%–20% one-time, Internal Revenue Service tax credit on eligible rehabilitation costs for pre-1936 and National Register historic properties. California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC): Various Programs Federal law limits how much tax-exempt debt a state can issue in a calendar year for private projects that have a qualified public benefit. This cap is determined by a population-based formula. CDLAC was created to set and allocate California’s annual debt ceiling and administer the state’s tax-exempt bond program to issue the debt. CDLAC’s programs are used to finance affordable housing developments for low-income Californians, build solid waste disposal and waste recycling facilities, and finance direct loans used by in-need college students and their parents. Assisted-Living Conversion Program (ALCP) To provide private nonprofit owners of eligible developments with a grant to convert some or all the dwelling units in the project into an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) for the frail elderly. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Grant awarded to the City annually on a formula basis to fund housing and economic development for low- and moderate-income persons. Emergency Capital Repairs Program Provides grants for substantial capital repairs to eligible multifamily projects that are owned by private nonprofit entities. HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Grant program specifically for housing. Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG) Grant awarded on an annual formula basis for shelter and services to homeless persons. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Funds available county-wide for supportive services and housing for persons with HIV/AIDS. Item 9.a. - Page 97 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 80 Funding Source Description Shelter Plus Care (S+C) Grants for rental assistance, in combination with supportive services from other sources, to homeless people. Local Housing Funds The City has an inclusionary housing ordinance. Fees collected under the ordinance are kept in the In-Lieu Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Funding from this source can be directed to affordable housing projects in the City and/or used to leverage state and federal housing funds. As of 2020, the fund has a balance of $928,000 available for projects that increase the supply of affordable housing units 4.6 Administrative Resources Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo The Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) was created to provide housing assistance for the county’s lower-income residents. HASLO administers the Housing Choice Voucher/Section 8 rental assistance program and manages public housing developments. HASLO also administers the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, the Security Deposit Program, and other programs. Currently, the agency provides 194 Section 8 vouchers to low-income households in Arroyo Grande and maintains a waiting list that is currently closed. People’s Self-Help Housing People’s Self-Help Housing (PSHH) is a diverse nonprofit organization committed to furthering opportunities for decent, safe, affordable housing and support services in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. PSHH has two primary programs - a Self-Help Homeownership program and a Rental Housing Development and Construction Services Program. Since its inception in the 1960s, PSHH has developed more than 1,200 sweat-equity homes and 1,700 rental units and has assisted in the rehabilitation and repair of more than 3,000 housing units. PSHH currently owns and operates four affordable housing projects in Arroyo Grande: Courtland Street Apartments (36 low- and very low-income units), Juniper Street Apartments (14 low- and very low- income units), Cawelti Court (28 units of housing for Seniors 62+ and Individuals living with disabilities) and Oak Forest Apartments (24 low and very low-income units). PSHH also provides free seminars to residents on the Central Coast, including those aimed at first- time homebuyers and foreclosure prevention. Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO) CAPSLO provides a wide variety of social services in San Luis Obispo County, including Homeless Services, Head Start, Health Services, and Energy Conservation Services. CAPSLO operates the 40 Prado Road Campus in San Luis Obispo, which provides shelter and services to the county’s homeless population. They also operate Head Start programs and two health centers in San Luis Obispo and Arroyo Grande. The Energy Conservation division provides weatherization and home repairs throughout the county. Another source of local housing funding is through the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (SLOCHTF), which is a private nonprofit corporation created to increase the supply of affordable housing in San Luis Obispo County for very low, low-, and Item 9.a. - Page 98 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 81 moderate-income households. SLOCHTF provides financing and technical assistance to help private developers, nonprofit corporations, and government agencies produce and preserve homes that working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities can afford to rent or buy. More information on SLOCHTF can be found at www.slochtf.org. Item 9.a. - Page 99 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 82 Item 9.a. - Page 100 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 83 Chapter 5 – HOUSING CONSTRAINTS The price of a home is based upon several basic costs: Land, materials, labor, financing rates and insurance, government requirements and fees, as well as environmental constraints. The first two sections of this chapter discuss governmental constraints and environmental and public service constraints. The cost of land, materials, and labor are determined by the free market economy. Financing rates and insurance costs are set by the capital markets and state and federal regulations. These items are discussed in the last section under non-governmental constraints. 5.1 Governmental Constraints The intent of this section is to analyze governmental constraints that affect housing development, as well as to identify constraints that may be modified to reduce barriers to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. The California Legislature has delegated to local governments specific responsibilities and a significant amount of discretionary control over the development and use of land. Through land use controls, development review procedures, and fees, cities influence the location, density, type, size, quality, and appearance of housing. These requirements significantly affect the cost and availability of housing. Many of these controls are required by local government in response to state and federal mandates to protect public health and safety, and others are adopted to achieve the desired quality of life and objectives of the local community. Land Use and Development Controls The primary policy tool for promoting a balanced use of land and resources is through the City’s General Plan. The 2001 General Plan establishes an overall framework for development and conservation of land in the City, primarily through the Land Use Element. State law divides the required content of a general plan into eight distinct elements and requires that the General Plan be designed as a balanced, integrated document that is internally consistent. The Housing Element is one of eight distinct General Plan elements and is required to address a number of specific issues. The primary means that the City uses to implement the General Plan is its Development Code, which establishes development standards, intensity of development, and minimum site standards. Various residential and mixed-use zoning districts are established that are intended to implement the densities set by the General Plan. Other requirements in the City’s Development Code include setbacks, lot coverage, parking, open space, and other related property development standards. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the land use designations from the General Plan Land Use Element to the zoning districts implemented by the Development Code. Table 5-1 also shows the maximum density per land use designation. Item 9.a. - Page 101 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 84 Table 5-1 Urban Land Use Element and Development Code General Plan Classification General Plan Dwelling Unit Max. Density Development Code Consistency Consistent Zoning Min Lot Size in Development Code Agriculture (Ag) 1 du/10 ac. General, Agricultural Preserve or Agricultural Preservation Overlay 10 ac. Conservation/ Open Space(C/OS) 1 du/20 ac. 1 du/10 ac. 1 du/5 ac. PF 25,000 sf Single-Family Residential Very Low Density (VLD) 1 du/2.5 ac. RE 92,500 sf Low Density (LD) 1 du/1.5 ac. 1 du/1 ac. RH RR 49,000 sf 40,000 sf Low Medium Density (LM) 2.5 du/1 ac. RS 12,000 sf2 Medium Density (MD) 4.5 du/ac. SF/VR SF – 7,200 sf VR – 6,750 sf Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residential (MFR) Medium High Density (MHD) Townhouse/Condo 9.0 du/ac. MF 10,000 sf Mobile Home Park (MHP) 12.0 du/ac. MHP 5 ac. High Density (HD) Apartments 14 du/ac. MFA 10,000 sf Very High Density (VHD) 25 du/ac. MFVH 20,000 sf Mixed-Use (MU) Village Core (VC) Office (O) PD, SP, and CF 25 du/ac. See Table 5-4 Source: City of Arroyo Grande General Plan and Development Code Notes 1 Density Allowed in RR zoning district is 1.0 du/ac 2 Reduced minimum building site area allowed with provision to permanently preserve sensitive habitat and/or open space corridors and/or to avoid development of steep slopes and ridgelines Mixed-use districts located along the East Grand Avenue corridor and South Halcyon Road allow building heights up to 35 feet and three stories with the ability to go up to 40 feet in some districts depending on the building size and proximity to residential development. There have been several recent 3-story projects. None of them requested any exceptions. These height allowances have not been found to constrain the development of 3 story projects. The Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU) district along El Camino Real allows heights to 30 feet and three stories. All Multiple-Family zoning districts allow 30 feet or two stories. Minor Exceptions can allow up to 33 feet in these districts. With a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre, a parcel with the minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet in the MFVH zone can accommodate a maximum of 11 units. The 60% lot coverage maximum allows a structure with a footprint of up to 12,000 square feet in this scenario. The 12,000 square foot structure could be divided into 11 units with a net floor area of approximately 800 square feet each and still comply with the maximum floor-area ratio of 0.45 for the zone. A second story may reduce the footprint of the building to accommodate parking and other amenities, but Item 9.a. - Page 102 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 85 buildings taller than two stories are not necessary to develop parcels in this zone to their maximum density. Housing types permitted by residential and mixed-use zoning districts are provided in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. Residential zoning development standards are shown in Table 5-4, multifamily and other zoning development standards are shown in Table 5-5, and Mixed-Use development standards are shown in Table 5-6. Multifamily projects of 2 to 4 units and multifamily projects of more than four units in the Multifamily Very High Density (MFVH) zoning district are permitted subject to an MUP, which is an administrative process. With these projects, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) makes a recommendation to the Community Development Director. Multifamily projects greater than four units in all other districts require a CUP, which is a discretionary review process. The ARC considers all CUPs associated with development projects and makes a recommendation to the City Council, Planning Commission, and/or Community Development Director. Design Review (DR) permits are limited to residential subdivisions approved with specific design guidelines. The ARC reviews DR applications for consistency with the approved design guidelines and makes a recommendation to the Community Development Director. Chapter 2.19 of the Municipal Code outlines the functions, duties, procedures, and guiding purposes in reviewing projects for the ARC. The function of the ARC is to make recommendations to decision makers regarding the administration of the provisions of Title 16 (Development Code), whenever applicable, in a manner that will: 1. Be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan and of Title 16 (Development Code); 2. Develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment; 3. Promote and enhance real property values; 4. Conserve the city’s natural beauty; 5. Preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character; 6. Ensure orderly and harmonious development of the city; and 7. Preserve historic structures and neighborhoods. The ARC meets twice per month. Development applications are subject, in many cases, to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that development applications be subject to an environmental review of the impacts that would result from implementation of a project. The City, as part of its 2001 General Plan, prepared a program EIR to address the impacts of development proposed by the plan. The anticipated residential development evaluated in the General Plan is similar to that required by the Regional Housing Needs established for the City. The Program EIR concluded that there were several significant environmental impacts that could not be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Required findings and statements of overriding considerations also required mitigation measures that will influence future residential development and may require project EIRs that will increase the cost of the development. These costs are unavoidable given the state-mandated requirements of CEQA. Item 9.a. - Page 103 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 86 Table 5-2 Housing Types Permitted by Zoning District – Residential Zoning District Residential Uses/Housing Type RE RH RR RS SF VR MF MFA MFVH MHP Accessory dwelling unit P P P P P P P P P P Assisted Living (Congregate Care) NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP Boarding/rooming houses NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP Condominium (air space) NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP Convalescent care NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP Emergency shelters NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Employee housing NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Home occupations P P P P P P P P P P Homeless shelters within religious or social organization buildings NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP Live-Work NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Mobile home parks C C C C C C C C C C Mobile home subdivisions C C C C C C C C C C Multiple-family housing (2–4 units) in a mixed-use project NP NP NP NP NP NP (1) (1) (1) NP Multiple-family attached (5 or more units) in a mixed-use project NP NP NP NP NP NP (1) (1) (1) NP Multiple-family attached (2–4 units) not in a mixed-use project NP NP NP NP NP NP MUP MUP P NP Multiple-family attached (5 or more units) not in a mixed-use project NP NP NP NP NP NP C C MUP NP Residential care facility, 6 or fewer persons P P P P P P P P P P Residential care facility, 7 or more persons NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Senior independent living uses NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP Single-family attached (twin home, triplex, fourplex) NP PUD NP NP PUD NP PUD PUD NP NP Single-family detached P P P P P MUP P P NP NP Small-lot single-family detached NP PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD NP NP NP Transitional and Supportive Housing P P P P P P P P P P (1) Determined by the most restrictive requirement among uses. Legend P = Permitted C = Permitted subject to issuance of a Conditional-Use Permit PUD = Permitted subject to issuance of a Planned Unit Development Permit MUP = Minor-Use Permit NP = Not Permitted Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code Item 9.a. - Page 104 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 87 Table 5-3 Housing Types Permitted by Zoning District – Mixed-Use Zoning District Residential Uses IMU TMU D- 2.11 VCD HCO D-2.4 VMU D-2.11 HCO D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU OMU D-2.20 RC PF AG AP Specific Use Standards Accessory dwelling unit NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP C C Assisted Living (Congregate Care) NP NP CUP CUP CUP/ PED CUP/ PED NP CUP NP CUP NP NP Boarding/rooming houses NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Condominium (air space) NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Convalescent care NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP Emergency shelter P NP NP NP NP NP P NP NP (5) NP NP Employee Housing NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP C C Home occupation NP MUP P P P P MUP P NP NP P P 16.16.090 Homeless shelters within religious or social organization buildings NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP NP Live-Work NP P NP NP NP NP P NP NP NP NP NP Mobile home parks NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Mobile home subdivisions NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Multiple-family attached (2 - 4 units) not in a mixed-use project NP NP MUP/ PED MUP CUP/ PED CUP/ PED CUP CUP NP NP NP NP Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district) required by Housing Element is not required on lots fronting E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU districts. Multiple-family attached (5 or more units) not in a mixed-use project NP NP NP CUP CUP/PED CUP/ PED CUP (on lots >20,000 square feet CUP (on lots >20,000 square feet) NP NP NP NP Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district) required by Housing Element is not required on lots fronting E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU districts. Multiple-family attached (2 - 4 units) in a mixed use project NP NP MUP/ PED MUP CUP/ PED CUP/ PED CUP CUP NP NP NP NP Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district) required by Housing Element is not required on lots fronting E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU districts. Multiple-family attached (5 or more units) in a mixed use project NP NP NP CUP CUP/PED CUP/ PED CUP (on lots >20,000 square feet CUP (on lots >20,000 square feet) NP NP NP NP Minimum density (75% of total density allowed by district) required by Housing Element is not required on lots fronting E. Grand Ave., E. Branch Street or in HMU or IMU districts. Residential care facility, 6 or fewer persons NP NP MUP/ PED MUP MUP/PED MUP NP MUP NP CUP NP NP Residential care facility, 7 or more persons NP NP CUP/PED CUP CUP/PED CUP/ PED NP CUP NP CUP NP NP Senior independent living uses NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Single-family residential within a mixed-use project NP NP NP MUP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Single-family attached (twin home, triplex, fourplex) NP NP NP MUP (3) NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Single-family detached NP NP NP MUP (3) NP NP NP NP NP NP P/C (2) P/C (2) Small lot single-family detached NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Item 9.a. - Page 105 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 88 Table 5-3 Housing Types Permitted by Zoning District – Mixed-Use Zoning District Residential Uses IMU TMU D- 2.11 VCD HCO D-2.4 VMU D-2.11 HCO D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU OMU D-2.20 RC PF AG AP Specific Use Standards Transitional and Supportive Housing (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) NP NP NP (1) Size break between large and small day care differs between residential and commercial zoning. (2) Permitted on conforming lots; conditional on non- conforming lots (3) Within a mixed-use project only (4) Subject to the same restrictions as the same residential type within this zone. (5) See Homeless Shelters within religious or social organization buildings Legend IMU = Industrial Mixed Use District (El Camino) P = Permitted Use OMU =Office Mixed Use District TMU = Traffic Way Mixed Use District CUP = Conditional-Use Permit RC = Regional Commercial District VCD = Village Core Downtown District NP = Not Permitted HCO = Historic Character Overlay District (Design Overlay District 2.4) VMU = Village Mixed Use District FOMU = Fair Oaks Mixed Use District MUP = Minor-Use Permit GMU = Gateway Mixed-Use District HMU= Highway Mixed Use District PED = Residential not permitted in pedestrian oriented storefront locations on ground floor facing E. Grand Avenue, East/West Branch Street or prime real estate space within shopping centers Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code Item 9.a. - Page 106 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 89 Table 5-4 Residential Site Development Standards Single-Family Zoning Districts RE RH RR RS SF VR PD Maximum density (DUs per gross acre) 0.4 0.67 1.0 2.5 4.5 4.5 -34 Minimum building site1 (Net area in sq. ft.) 92,5002 49,000 40,000 12,000 (reduced minimum building site area allowed with provision to permanently preserve sensitive habitat and/or open space corridors and/or to avoid development of steep slopes and ridgelines) 7,200 6,750 -34 Minimum lot width3 200 ft. 130 ft. 120 ft. 80 ft. 70 ft. 50 ft. -33, 34 Minimum lot depth 250 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. -33, 34 Minimum front yard 50 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. -34 Minimum interior side yard setback 30 ft. 10% of lot width 10% of lot width 5 ft. one side, 10 ft. other side (For lots <12,000 sq. ft use SF) 5 ft. one side, 10 ft. other side 5 ft. -34 Minimum street side yard setback 30 ft. 15% of lot width 15% of lot width 15 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. -34 Minimum rear yard setback 50 ft. 40 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. (For lots <12,000 sq. ft use SF) 10 ft. (1- story) 15 ft. (2-story) 10 ft. (1-story) 15 ft. (2-story) -34 Maximum lot coverage4 35% 35% 35% 30% (For lots < 10,000 sq. ft. use SF) 40% 40% 30%, or as shown on the Development Plan Maximum height for buildings and structures 30 ft. or 2 stories, whichever is less, 14 ft. for accessory buildings -34 14 ft. for accessory buildings. Minimum distance between buildings (including main dwellings and accessory structures)5 20 ft. 20 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. -34 Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code Item 9.a. - Page 107 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 90 Table 5-5 Residential Site Development Standards Multiple-Family and Other Zoning Districts MF MFA MFVH MHP Maximum density (DUs per gross acre) 9.0 14.0¹ 25.0 12.0 Minimum building site (Net area in sq. ft.) 10,000 10,000 20,000 5 acres Minimum lot width 80 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 60 ft.6 Minimum lot depth 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.6 Minimum front yard setback 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Minimum interior side yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. Minimum street side yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. Minimum rear yard setback Average 15 ft.7 Average 15 ft.7 Average 15 ft.7 5 ft. Maximum lot coverage 40% 45% 60%6 50% Maximum height for buildings and structures 30 ft. or 2 stories, whichever is less, 14 ft. for accessory buildings 30 ft. or 2 stories, whichever is less, 14 ft. for accessory buildings 30 ft. or 2 stories, whichever is less, 14 ft. for accessory buildings 30 ft. or 2 stories, whichever is less, 14 ft. for accessory buildings Minimum distance between buildings (including main dwellings and accessory structures) 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code Table 5-6 Residential Site Development Standards Mixed-Use Zoning Districts IMU TMU VCD VMU GMU FOMU HMU OMU Maximum density – Mixed-Use (DUs per gross acre) --8 --8 15 15 2516 2516 2016 2016 Maximum density – Multifamily housing (DUs per gross acre) n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 15 20 15 Minimum density17 n/a n/a n/a n/a 75% of max. density16 75% of max. density16 n/a 75% of max. density16 Minimum Lot Size 18,000 sf (gross) 10,000 sf (gross) 2,500 sf 5,000 sf 20,000 sf (gross) 15,000 sf (gross) 20,000 sf (gross) 20,000 sf Minimum lot width 100 ft. 80 ft. 25 ft. 40 ft. 100 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 100 ft. Item 9.a. - Page 108 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 91 Table 5-6 Residential Site Development Standards Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Front Yard Setback 10 ft. 0-15 ft. 25 0-15 ft. 26 0-15 ft. 0-10 ft.18 0-10 ft.18 0-15 ft. 25 0-10 ft. 18 Rear Yard setback 0-15 ft.9 0-15 ft.10 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft.14 0-15 ft. 19 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft.10 0-15 ft. Side yard setback 0-15 ft. 23 0 ft.10 0 ft. 0 ft.15 0-5 ft.19 0-5 ft.19 0 ft. 10 0-5 ft. Street side yard setback 20 ft. 24 0-15 ft. 25 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft. 0-15 ft. 25 0-15 ft. Maximum height 30 ft. or 2 stories 30 ft. or 3 stories11 30 ft. or 3 stories13 30 ft. or 3 stories13 35 ft. or 3 stories20 35 ft. or 3 stories20 30 ft. or 3 stories11 35 ft. or 3 stories21 Maximum building size 102,500 sf 50,000 sf12 20,000 sf 10,000 sf 102,500 sf 50,000 sf 50,000 sf12 50,000 sf22 Site Coverage 50% 75% 100% 100% 75% 70% 75% 70% Floor Area Ratio 0.45 0.75 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.75 100 Off-street parking and loading Reference Section 16.56.020 Reference Standards D-2.11 and Section 16.56.020 Exceptions allowed by Section 16.16.120 Reference Parking and Business Improvement District Plan in Section 16.56.020 Reference Parking VMU and HCO in Section 16.56.020 (C) --28 --30 --31 Reference Section 16.56.020 Site design and signs Reference Chapter 16.60 Reference Standards D-2.11 and Chapter 16.60 Reference Standards for Historic Districts and Chapter 16.60 Reference Standards for Historic Districts and Chapter 16.60 --27 --29 Reference Standards D-2.11 and Chapter 16.60 --32 Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code Notes (Tables 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6): 1 See Table 16.32.050-A for minimum lot sizes for parcels with slope greater than seven percent. 2 Area shall be increased to five acres for slope conditions exceeding 20 percent. 3 Width measurements for cul-de-sac or otherwise odd-shaped lots shall be determined on the basis of the average horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. 4 The following floor area ratios shall be adhered to in all zoning districts in addition to lot coverage requirements: Item 9.a. - Page 109 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 92 Lot Size Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0 — 4,000 square feet net 0.35 4,001 — 7,199 square feet net 0.40 7,200 — 11,999 square feet net 0.50 12,000 — 39,999 square feet net 0.45 40,000 + square feet net The above FARs shall not apply to condominium or planned unit development (PUD) projects where the proposed lot consists of a building footprint. 5 Within a planned unit development, building separations may be reduced to zero feet, provided that fire walls are provided per Uniform Building Code standards. 6 The minimum parcel size within the mobile home district may be reduced to 3,600 square feet with a minimum average width of 40 feet and a minimum frontage of not less than 30 feet if common open space areas and recreational facilities are provided as part of the subdivision and if the open space areas and recreational facilities are reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the subdivision. Standards for the provision of common open space required to permit a reduction in lot size are as follows: (1) A minimum of 500 square feet of common open space and recreational area shall be provided for each residential lot in the subdivision. (2) The combined square footage of common open space, recreational area, and residential lot area, not including public and private streets and cannon parking areas shall average not less than 6,000 square feet per lot within the subdivision. (3) Open space and recreational areas shall be designated on the subdivision map, and shall be located entirely within the subdivision. 7 For two-story buildings, average rear yard setback shall be 20 feet. Average includes all buildings along rear property line and is subject to City approval. 8 New residential limited to live-work units in conjunction with allowed uses. Density determined by discretionary action. 9 50 feet if adjacent to a residential district. 10 Wherever a lot in any commercial or mixed-use district abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use district, a minimum building setback of 20 feet measured from the property line shall be required for proposed commercial use. 11 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the CUP process for visitor-serving uses. 12 A greater size may be allowed through the CUP process. 13 Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the MUP process. 14 If project is mixed-use and/or abuts a residential district, then 10 feet required. 15 If a project is mixed-use and/or abuts a residential district, then 5 feet is required for single-story structures and 110 feet is required, on one side, for multiple stories. 16 Based on gross project area. 17 Projects that do not front E. Grand Avenue; densities do not include density bonus. See Chapter 16.80. 18 Exceptions for larger setbacks may include entrance courtyards, areas for outdoor dining, or for projects facing a residential district as determined through discretionary review. 19 For projects abutting a residential district, corresponding residential setback shall apply. 20 Maximum height is 35 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of up to 40 feet for mixed-use projects by discretionary action on lots larger than 20,000 square feet and where the building is not adjacent to a residential district. 21 Maximum height for mixed residential/commercial use is 35 feet or three stories, whichever is less. 22 A greater size may be allowed through the CUP process. 23 Except as otherwise permitted, required rear and interior side building setback areas shall be used only for landscaping, pedestrian walkways, driveways, off-street parking or loading, recreational activities or facilities, and similar accessory activities. 24 Except as otherwise permitted, a street-side building setback area shall be used only for landscaping, pedestrian walkways, driveways, or off-street parking. 25 Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales determined through discretionary action. Item 9.a. - Page 110 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 93 26 Structures typically built at back of sidewalk. Exceptions include entrance courtyards and areas for outdoor dining determined through discretionary review. 27 Commercial and mixed-use projects larger than 20,000 square feet: 200 square feet of publicly accessible open space is required for every 5,000 square feet of office or commercial spaces exclusive of areas for parking and driveways. See General Commercial and Mixed-Use Design Guidelines and Standards. General Plan Policies LU5-11. For mixed-use projects, refer to Section 16.48.065. Additional sign standards are found in Chapter 16.60. 28 See Design Guidelines and Standards. Parking is to be located behind buildings or to the side. Driveways along E. Grand Avenue shall be minimized by combining driveways, using alleys, or designing development so that access is provided from local streets. See Section 16.56.020. 29 See Design Guidelines and Standards. Please note General Plan Policies LU5-11. For mixed-use projects, refer to Section 16.48.065. Additional sign standards are found in Chapter 16.60. 30 See Design Guidelines and Standards. Parking is to be located behind buildings or to the side. Driveways along E. Grand Avenue shall be minimized when possible by combining driveways, using alleys, or designing development so that access is provided from local streets. See Section 16.56.020. 31 See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11 Exhibit ‘A’ for shared parking locations. See also Section 16.56.020. Exceptions allowed by Section 16.16.120. 32 See OMU-D-2.20. Please note General Plan Policy LU5-11. For mixed-use projects, refer to Section 16.48.065. Additional sign standards are also found in Chapter 16.60. 33 Minimum lot sizes may be reduced by two-thirds if the area reduction is devoted to common area, open space, green belt, or other recreational uses. 34 Per development plan. Item 9.a. - Page 111 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 94 Building Code Requirements The Arroyo Grande building requirements are based upon the latest version of the California Building Code, which is a version of the International Building Code adopted by the state. The City adopted Ordinance No. 679 in 2016, which amended the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 8.04 and 8.08 related to the adoption of the California Fire Code and International Fire Code; and amended Chapter 15.04 related to the adoption of the California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Code, California existing Building Code, California Energy Code, California Historical Building Code, and the International Property Maintenance Code. The 2016 Ordinance also made a local amendment to Section 15.04.024 of the Municipal Code regarding fire sprinklers. Code enforcement is complaint-based. If an infraction is found, the enforcement officer provides a list of potential resources to the homeowner. The code ensures safe housing and is not considered a significant constraint to housing production. Inclusionary Housing In 2000 (last amended in 2007), the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Development Code Chapter 16.80, Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements). To date, two very-low income units have been entitled during previous planning periods, but otherwise, applicants have chosen to pay the in-lieu fee described in the ordinance. To incentivize the entitlement of affordable units, the City increased the housing in-lieu fee from 1 percent to 5 percent. According to the ordinance, any residential development of two units or more is required to build a certain percentage of the units as affordable, pay an in-lieu fee, or donate a suitable amount of land. The required percentages are as follows: • At least five percent very low-income units; • At least 10 percent lower-income units; • At least 15 percent moderate-income units where the proposed project is planned for rental units or units that are not developed as a common interest development pursuant to Civil Code Section 1351; or • An equivalent combination as determined by the Community Development Director. The inclusionary units can be owner-occupied or rental units and restrictions must be put in place to maintain their affordability for at least 45 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental units. The determination whether an applicant constructs units, pays an in-lieu fee, or donates land is made by the City Council on a project-by-project basis. Allowances and incentives are available for projects with inclusionary units, including density bonuses, fee waivers or reductions, modification of development standards, and technical assistance from the City on applying for financial subsidy programs. Establishment of these regulations has increased the supply of affordable housing in Arroyo Grande. Increased flexibility during the review process and with project review costs are intended to offset increased costs and time required to meet the requirements of this inclusionary section of the Development Code. Program E.1-1 is proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of these regulations to date and amend Chapter 16.80, Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements, as deemed helpful to increase production of affordable units. Item 9.a. - Page 112 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 95 Vacation Rentals The City last updated their vacation rental regulations in 2014. These regulations can be found in Section 16.52.230 and 240 of the Development Code. Vacation rentals and homestays are permitted with an MUP in the RE, RH, RR, RS, SF, VR D-2.4, MF, and MFA zoning districts and are prohibited in all other residential zoning districts. They are also permitted in the TMU D-2.11, VCD HCO D-2.4, VMU D-2.11, HCO D-2.4, GMU, FOMU, HMU, and OMU 1 D-2.20 zoning districts and are prohibited in all other commercial and mixed-use zoning districts. The property owner is required to obtain an MUP-Plot Plan Review and a business license from the City. Vacation rental and homestays must be at least 300 feet from any other vacation rental or homestay on the same street. Additional performance standards and conditions are found in the Development Code sections referenced above. The vacation rental and homestay regulations balance housing needs of long-term residents with the mission of providing accommodations to visitors to the city. Density Bonus Standards The City’s density bonus program (Development Code Chapter 16.82) implements the state’s Density Bonus Law. The purpose of the density bonus requirements is to increase the production of affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate-income households as well as senior housing and mobile home developments. Developer concessions or incentives are granted for a residential project that meets the criteria for a density bonus project. Incentives granted by the City include, but are not limited to: • Flexibility in development standards; • Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project; • Leniency on parking ratios set forth in Government Code Section 65915; or • Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the City or developer. The City updated their density bonus program in 2007 to be consistent with updates to state law before that year; however, amendments are required to bring regulations into compliance with the changes made to state law since 2007. Therefore, Program A.10-1 is proposed to bring the City into complete compliance with current state density bonus law. Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing State legislation SB 2 requires jurisdictions to permit emergency shelters without a CUP or other discretionary permits, and transitional housing and supportive housing must be considered residential uses and must only be subject to the same restrictions that apply to the same housing types in the same zone. Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April 2016 to amend the Development Code to comply with state law regarding Emergency Shelters and Supportive and Transitional Housing. Emergency shelters are allowed without discretionary review in the IMU and HMU zoning districts. Operational standards for emergency shelters are located in Development Code Section 16.52.091. There are three vacant parcels in the HMU zoning district and the area of these parcels is approximately 1.65 acres. The acreage of each of the three vacant parcels is .58, .07, and 1.00 acres. There are currently no vacant parcels in the IMU zoning district. In addition, there are 22.8 acres on 13 parcels on non-vacant sites in the IMU zoning district. Aside from the one non-vacant site zoned HMU and the three vacant parcels, there are 68 parcels on 20.5 acres in the HMU zoning district. Many of these parcels could potentially accommodate an emergency shelter in new or repurposed buildings. The available sites in the overlay provide a sufficient number of options with Item 9.a. - Page 113 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 96 a sufficient amount of acreage for shelter beds that could address the needs of the number of homeless persons in the City. The Emergency Shelter Overlay zoning district is located in areas of the City close to transit and services. Accessory Dwelling Units In the City’s Development Code, accessory dwelling units are described as either a detached or attached dwelling unit that provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary residence. Accessory dwelling units can be an important source of affordable housing because they are smaller than primary units and they do not have direct land costs. Accessory dwelling units can also provide supplemental income to the homeowner, for example allowing the elderly to remain in their homes. Accessory dwelling units are permitted in the RE, RH, RR, RS, SF, VR, MF, MFA, MFVH, and MHP zoning districts. Regulations specific to accessory dwelling units are found in Development Code Section 16.52.150. The City amended its zoning in 2017 to comply with updates to state legislation. However, additional legislation was passed in late 2019 that the City will need to address in an amended accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Program A.2-1 will bring the City into complete compliance with current state law regarding accessory dwelling units. Development Processing and Development Impact Fees Like most cities in California, Arroyo Grande charges planning, building, and impact fees for residential developments. Table 5-8 summarizes the planning fees charged by the Community Development Department for processing residential applications. These fees are established by the City Council to cover the staff and other costs associated with processing a housing development application. These fees are comparable to other area jurisdictions and not considered excessive. The fees charged at the time of the issuance of a building permit for residential development include standard building permit plan check and inspection fees as well as impact fees set by the City. Building fees are set according to the types of permits processed under the Building Code and represent the costs for plan review and inspection of the project construction. Given the nature of these fees, they are not considered excessive in that they are essential to ensure the health and safety of the project construction. Impact fees cover the costs of infrastructure and public services. Given the current tax structure the City must operate under, there are not adequate general funds to provide the services and infrastructure necessary for new residential development as they place new demands and impacts on the City’s infrastructure and services. Thus, development impact fees must be charged to cover the development’s costs of the services or infrastructure requirements. School impact fees that have been imposed by the local school district help cover their costs of construction needed to support additional school population associated with new residential development. Development impact fees increase the cost of housing, and proportionally, affordable housing. As an incentive to produce more affordable housing, the City eliminated or reduced development impact fees for very low and low-income housing developments, including accessory dwelling units. Water and sewer fees still apply. Item 9.a. - Page 114 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 97 Table 5-8 Schedule of Typical Fees for Residential Development Application Type Base Fees Appeals From Community Development Director to Planning Commission $ 491 From Planning Commission decision to City Council $ 1,163 Certificate of Compliance $ 3,512 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Major (Multi Building) $ 14,347 Minor – (Change of use or as otherwise determined by Director)) $ 6,212 Amendment $ 3,137 Development Agreement $ 24,024 Development Code Amendment Major (Determined by Director) $ 16,187 Minor (Determined by Director) $ 8,901 EIR/Environmental Studies Initial Study Fee $ 3,412 Negative Declaration (in addition to Initial Study Fee) $ 554 Mitigated Negative Declaration (in addition to Initial Study Fee) $ 2,318 General Plan Amendment Major (Determined by Director) $ 16,187 Minor (Determined by Director) $ 8,901 Minor Use Permit Architectural Review: Major (Determined by Director) $ 5,145 Architectural Review: Minor (Determined by Director) $ 923 Minor Exception $ 999 Plot Plan Review $ 735 Viewshed Review $1,130 Specific Plan Deposit $ 23,978 Planned Unit Development Major (Determined by Director) $ 15,261 Minor (Determined by Director) $ 7,301 Pre-Application Review $ 1,228 Planning Commission (per meeting) $ 1,810 Second Dwelling Unit (see CUP) Tentative Parcel Map (>5 lots) Base Fee (5–20 lots) $ 15,670 Base Fee (Over 20 lots) $ 18,190 Vesting $ 1,535 Amendment $ 6,879 Item 9.a. - Page 115 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 98 Table 5-8 Schedule of Typical Fees for Residential Development Application Type Base Fees Tentative Tract Map (<4 lots) Base Fee $ 9.537 Vesting $ 591 Amendment $ 4,620 Source: City of Arroyo Grande. Community Development Department Application Fees, 2019. Additionally, the City requires each newly constructed residential project to pay impact fees related to the cost of providing public services. Table 5-9 Schedule of Typical Development Impact Fees for Residential Development Fee Single-Family Home Multifamily Home, Per Unit Fire Protection $ 2,015 $ 181 Police Facilities $ 126 $ 222 Traffic Signalization $ 741 $ 519 Transportation Facilities $ 2,022 $ 1,415 Community Centers $ 149 $ 110 Park Improvements $ 2,573 $ 1,906 Water Facilities (1") $ 1,746 $ 1,746 School, per square foot $ 3.48 $ 3.48 Source: City of Arroyo Grande. Community Development Department, February 2020. The total fees charged at Building Permit issuance for the average single family is approximately $28,594 per unit, which includes building fees and impact fees. For multifamily projects, the estimated building and impact fees are estimated at approximately $12,475 per unit. These fees are one of the substantial costs of housing, but as noted above, these fees are either required consistent with the building code, are needed to finance infrastructure or services, or serve as mitigation for the project impacts. Total fees comprise approximately 5.4 percent of the home purchase price (see Table 5-10). Given the prices of housing in the City and fees in other jurisdictions, fees charged for residential development are not a significant factor contributing to the high housing costs in the City. Table 5-10 Proportion of Fee in Overall Development Cost for a Typical Residential Development Development Cost for a Typical Unit Single Family Multiple Family Total estimated fees per unit1 $28,594 $12,475 Estimated development cost per unit2 $501,133 $249,697 Estimated proportion of fee cost to overall development cost per unit 5.7% 5.0% Notes 1 Source: City of Arroyo Grande Application Fees, 2019 and Development Impact Fees, 2020. Source: City of Arroyo Grande, 2020; Zillow, 2020, based on a one-half acre land cost and the median per-acre cost of land. Item 9.a. - Page 116 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 99 Permit Processing Timelines Permit processing times in Arroyo Grande are comparable to other cities in the county. Most of the processing times are a result of state-mandated reviews and hearings, including the time required for preparation of the required environmental documents. Projects requiring an EIR can be processed in a year. Those not requiring an EIR may be processed in six months or less. While application and permit processing times may seem excessive by some, they are generally prescribed by law. It should be noted that timelines can also change depending on if a proposed project is in a Planned Development Area. Any project within a Planned Development requires City Council approval. The 2001 General Plan Land Use Map eliminated reference to already developed Planned Development (PD) areas but retained vacant areas. The Development Code and Zoning Map were updated to rezone commercial properties located in Planned Development areas from PD 1.1 and PD 1.2 to Regional Commercial (RC). This change results in shorter permit processing timelines for commercial projects in developed PD areas. The goal of the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department is to issue a decision within the time periods listed in Table 5-11. These time periods begin when a complete application is submitted and are extended when additional information is requested by the City. Applications for building permits are usually submitted within one year once a project is fully entitled. To assist applicants, the City provides the timeframes below for “target issuance date”—when an applicant can expect a decision on their application, and an “initial comments due” date—when they can expect to receive initial review comments from staff. Typical built densities range in different zoning districts. Within the single-family zoning districts the built density ranges from 0.4 dwelling units per acre in the Residential Estate zone, to 4.5 dwelling units per acre in the Single Family zone. The typical density for the Condominium/Townhouse zone is one dwelling per every 4,840 square feet, or the equivalent of 9 du/ac. The typical density for the Multifamily Apartment zone is 3,111 sf per dwelling or the equivalent of 14 units per acre. The typical density for the Multifamily Very High Density zone is 1,742 sf per dwelling or the equivalent of 25 du/ac. The mixed-use zones allow various levels of density ranging from 15 dwelling units per acre for 100% residential projects in the Office Mixed-Use zone to 25 dwelling units per acre for mixed-use projects in the Fair Oaks Mixed-Use and Gateway Mixed-Use zoning districts. During the fifth cycle planning period, the average residential density for all projects approved in mixed-use zoning districts was 81 percent of the maximum density available. The City did not receive any requests to develop at lower densities during the 5th cycle. Table 5-11 Permit Processing Timeline Permit Type Initial Comments Due: Target Issuance Date: Minor-Use Permit (administrative) (Formerly Viewshed, Plot Plan, Architectural Review, and Minor Exception permits) 14 days 21 days Temporary Use Permit (administrative) 7 days 14 days Administrative Sign Permit (administrative) 7 days 14 days Conditional Use Permit (discretionary) 30 days 180 days Lot Line Adjustment (discretionary) 30 days 90 days Item 9.a. - Page 117 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 100 Table 5-11 Permit Processing Timeline Permit Type Initial Comments Due: Target Issuance Date: Tentative Parcel Map (discretionary) 30 days 120 days Tentative Tract Map (discretionary) 30 days 180 days Development Code Amendment (discretionary) 30 days 180 days General Plan Amendment (discretionary) 30 days 180 days Specific Plan (discretionary) 30 days 1 year Variance (discretionary) 30 days 90 days Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2020. On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements Typical on- and off-site improvement requirements for residential subdivisions and/or mixed-use projects are imposed as part of the approval process for a subdivision and/or CUP application. Current improvement standards include submittal of the following improvement plans: Grading and drainage; erosion control; street improvements; curb, gutter, and sidewalk; public utilities; water and sewer; landscaping and irrigation. These improvement plan requirements are generally based on health, safety, and to a lesser extent, aesthetic issues. As with land costs, several variables affect the amount of site improvement costs, including site topography and proximity to established roads and utilities. Minimum street widths vary for different street types. For a local road the minimum width is 52 feet, for a residential collector it is 60 feet, for a collector 78 feet, for an arterial 86 feet, and for a primary arterial 110 feet. The City requires that curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be placed along the frontage of every lot on which new construction is done. Many of these improvements, especially sidewalks, generally are required to provide pedestrian access and access for the handicapped. These costs have been estimated at $82 per linear foot for curb, gutter, and sidewalk for a standard single-family housing subdivision. The City’s Municipal Code also requires any project that includes the addition of more than 500 square feet of habitable space to place their utility service connections underground. Applications for all tract and parcel maps, conditional use permits, and variances shall include undergrounding all utilities as a condition of approval. While these costs contribute to the cost of a housing unit, the improvements required by the City are typical of all cities in the state and do not impose a significant constraint on the development of housing in the City. City regulations are intended to generally encourage high-quality private development and new construction. Improvement requirements also include off-street parking standards. Table 5-12 lists applicable parking space requirements for residential developments. In certain situations, parking requirements may be reduced or waived. This includes some alternative parking arrangement options, such as common parking facilities and density-bonus parking reduction concessions. The Development Code does not require bicycle parking for residential uses; however, the City does encourage bicycle parking to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution problems. Off-street disabled/handicapped parking is required in compliance with the California Building Code and California Code of Regulations Title 24. Item 9.a. - Page 118 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 101 Table 5-12 Residential Parking Standards Residential Use Parking Standard Single-family homes Conventional size lot 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage Small lot (PUD) 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage and 0.5 space/unit for visitor parking Duplexes 2 space per unit within an enclosed garage and 1 uncovered space per unit Second residential units 1 uncovered space per unit Townhouse and condominiums (Attached ownership units) RESIDENT AND VISITOR PARKING: Studio 1 space per unit within an enclosed garage 1 bedroom 1 space per unit within an enclosed garage and .5 uncovered spaces per unit for developments over four units. 2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage and 0.5 uncovered space per unit for developments over four units. Apartments and multifamily dwellings (rental units) RESIDENT PARKING: Studio 1 covered space per unit 1 bedroom 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit for developments over four units 2+ bedrooms 2 covered spaces per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit for developments over four units. Senior housing - independent living RESIDENT PARKING: Studio 1 covered space per unit 1 bedroom 1 covered space per unit 2+ bedrooms 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit Senior housing - assisted living 1 uncovered space per 3 beds and 1 space per employee on the largest work shift Mobile home parks 2.5 uncovered spaces per unit Large family day care facilities 1 uncovered space per staff person other than the homeowner in addition to the required parking for the residential building Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code. Constraints on Housing for Disabled Persons As part of the governmental constraints analysis, state law calls for the analysis of potential and actual constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. Table 5-13 reviews the Development Code, land use policies, permitting practices, and building codes to ensure compliance with state and federal fair housing laws. Where necessary, the City proposes new policies or programs to remove constraints. Arroyo Grande has not specifically adopted a reasonable accommodation policy or ordinance to accommodate housing or access considerations for persons with disabilities. However, the City Item 9.a. - Page 119 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 102 does follow California’s accessibility laws through the implementation of the California Building Code. Item 9.a. - Page 120 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 103 Table 5-13 Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities Overarching and General Does the City have a process for persons with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation? Arroyo Grande has not adopted a reasonable accommodation policy or ordinance for persons with disabilities in the enforcement of development and building codes and the issuance of building permits. However, the City allows retrofitting to increase suitability of homes for people with disabilities. Program K.2-1 is proposed to create a reasonable accommodation procedure for the City. Has the City made efforts to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities? Group homes (residential care facility) of six persons or less are permitted by right in all residential zoning districts in the City. Group homes of seven or more are permitted with a CUP in the VCD, VMU, GMU, FOMU, and OMU mixed-use zoning districts. Does the City assist in meeting identified needs? The City works with service providers in the region to address and, if possible, help fund work that addresses those with identified needs. Program K.1-1 commits the City to continue working on addressing the needs of those with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. Zoning and Land Use Has the City reviewed all its zoning laws, policies, and practices for compliance with fair housing law? Yes, the City has reviewed the land use regulations and practices and is in compliance with fair housing laws. Are residential parking standards for persons with disabilities different from other parking standards? Does the City have a policy or program for the reduction of parking requirements for special needs housing if a proponent can demonstrate a reduced parking need? Section 16.56.070 of the Development Code (Design and paving standards for off-street parking facilities) mandates the provision of disabled parking spaces in accordance with California Building Code (part 2 of Title 24) Chapter 11. In certain situations, parking requirements may be reduced or waived. This includes some alternative parking arrangement options, such as common parking facilities and density bonus parking reduction concessions. Does the locality restrict the siting of group homes? No. Group homes for less than six people are permitted by right in all residential zoning districts. What zones allow group homes other than those allowed by state law? Are group home over six persons allowed? Group homes (referred to as Residential Care Facilities in the Development Code) of six or less individuals are allowed by right in all residential districts. They are allowed in the VCD, VMU, HCO, GMU, FOMU, and OMU districts with an MUP. Facilities with more than seven residents are allowed in the VCD, VMU, HCO, GMU, FOMU, and OMU districts with a CUP. Does the City have occupancy standards in the zoning code that apply specifically to unrelated adults and not to families? No Does the land use element regulate the siting of special needs housing in relationship to one another? No. There is no minimum distance required between two or more special needs housing units. Item 9.a. - Page 121 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 104 Table 5-13 Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities Permits and Processing How does the City process a request to retrofit homes for accessibility? Arroyo Grande allows residential retrofitting to increase the suitability of homes for people with disabilities in compliance with ADA requirements, as permitted in the California Code. Does the City allow groups homes with six or fewer persons by right in single-family zoning districts? Yes. Does the City have a set of particular conditions or use restrictions for group homes with greater than six persons? Group homes with greater than six persons are allowed by CUP in the VCD, VMU, HCO, GMU, FOMU, and OMU districts. They are subject to review by the architectural review committee and are required to be incompliance with the same parking and site coverage requirements as multifamily uses. The City does not have a set of conditions of approval for these facilities. What kind of community input does the City allow for the approval of group homes? Group homes (or Residential Care Facilities) of six or less individuals are allowed by right in all residential districts. They require no other planning approval other than to ensure that the development conforms to the standards of the Development Code. The facilities with more than seven residents are allowed in VCD, VMU, HCO, GMU, FOMU, and OMU districts with a CUP. The CUP provides the public with an opportunity to review the project and express their concerns in a public hearing. Does the City have particular conditions for group homes that will be providing services on site? No, the City does not have special standards or conditions of approval for group homes regarding services or operation. Building Codes Has the locality adopted the Uniform Building Code? Arroyo Grande has adopted the California Building Code. No amendments have been made that affect the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities. Has the City adopted any universal design element into the code? No. Does the City provide reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in the enforcement of building codes and the issuance of building permits? Arroyo Grande allows for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in the enforcement of building codes and issuance of building permits. Program K.2-1 is proposed to create a reasonable accommodation procedure for the City. Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2020 Item 9.a. - Page 122 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 105 5.2 Environmental Constraints and Energy Conservation The City adopted a General Plan Update in 2001. As part of the process of adopting the update, a program EIR was prepared to address the environmental issues attributed to the growth proposed. It is important to note that the General Plan Update evaluated residential growth that is very similar to that included in the RHNA adopted for the City, except that the General Plan assumes a longer planning period than the needs assessment. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that there were three major environmental impacts that were significant and could not be feasibly mitigated to less than significant: water availability, traffic/circulation, and air quality. Thus, findings and statements of over-riding consideration were adopted. These critical issues are considered constraints on residential development and are discussed herein, along with other constraints anticipated. Water Availability According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City used 113 gallons per capita per day in 2015. In calendar year 2019, the City used 2,138 acre-feet of water, which calculates to a per-capita consumption of 108 gallons per person per day. If the per-capita consumption remains at this level, the City’s buildout population of 20,000 would require an annual supply of 2,420 acre- feet, which can be met with the current water supply. The City continues to offer free plumbing retrofits, washing machine rebates, and commercial dishwashing machine rebates to customers. City customers have reduced their per-capita consumption rate by 34 percent since 2013, conserving 975 AFY. This effort, along with improved groundwater and surface water management, coupled with the Central Coast Blue recycled water project, will provide Arroyo Grande with a sustainable water supply for the foreseeable future. It is, therefore, anticipated that current water resources will be sufficient to serve the increased population proposed by the General Plan, and thus, adequate to serve the projected population proposed by the RHNA. Traffic/Circulation The General Plan Program EIR evaluated traffic impacts, both from proposed City development as well as regional impacts of growth. The EIR concluded that many local streets and Highway 101 will be significantly impacted. It is difficult to estimate how significant Highway 101 impacts would be during the timeframe of the General Plan in that the improvements required to serve much of the undeveloped land in the southeast and south portions of the City are not yet planned and likely will not be implemented until after the Housing Element planning period. However, there has been planning progress for Highway 101 interchange improvements in the vicinity of Brisco Road. Despite these planned improvements, additional development will cumulatively impact area roadways and thus is another constraint to continued regional residential development, including within the City. Air Quality Like traffic/circulation, air quality was determined in the General Plan Program EIR to be a significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. This is a cumulative impact attributed to additional growth, thus may be considered a significant constraint to continued residential regional development, including within the City. Item 9.a. - Page 123 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 106 Flooding Arroyo Grande is in a Mediterranean climate with a rainy season lasting from approximately November to March. While rain is possible during other times of the year, these are months where the most substantial rainfall occurs in the City. The waterways with potential for 0.1 percent (100 year) flood events include Canyon/Meadow Creek, Corbett Canyon, Tally Ho, Arroyo Grande, and Los Berros Creeks. One of the greatest challenges for the City is managing flood risks that begin upstream and outside City limits. One solution that has been implemented with the cooperation of the San Luis Obispo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) is the creation of a special zoning district. This RCD zoning district 1/1A provides funding for flood control projects. Severe flooding events in 2003 indicated that additional flood control measures are required to reduce the long-term risk. Earthquakes and Ground-Shaking There are two faults within the City limits – the Pismo Fault and the Wilmar Avenue Fault. The Pismo Fault is an inactive fault and presents a low risk to Arroyo Grande. The Wilmar Avenue Fault is a potentially active fault that runs through the City and follows Highway 101. California defines potentially active as a fault that has experienced surface rupture within the last 1.6 million years. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Wilmar Avenue Fault presents a moderate risk to the City. The greatest risk to Arroyo Grande for ground-shaking is from the San Andreas Fault and the Hosgri Fault. The San Andreas Fault historically has caused earthquakes greater than 8.0 in magnitude and will likely cause future earthquakes of this magnitude. In December 2003, a 6.5-magnitude earthquake from the Hosgri Fault struck northern San Luis Obispo County. This earthquake resulted in two deaths and damage to 40 buildings. There are 26 buildings identified under the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law in Arroyo Grande. The existence of these buildings led to the City establishing a mandatory strengthening program to reduce risk from these buildings. All 26 buildings are in compliance with the local strengthening program. Landslides A majority of Arroyo Grande is at low risk for landslides. The areas at greatest risk are hillsides where steeper slopes are located. The potential for slope stability hazards in valley areas is low to very low. The areas at greatest risk for landslide are just north of Highway 101 in the hillsides and in the eastern sections of Arroyo Grande. Energy Conservation Planning and design to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green building features contributes to reduced housing costs as well as reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Energy-efficient community design can reduce dependence on automobiles. Item 9.a. - Page 124 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 107 Residential water heating and heating/cooling are major sources of energy consumption. With the application of energy-efficient design and the use of solar power systems, home heating and cooling can be operated on a more efficient and sustainable level. By encouraging solar energy technology for residential heating/cooling in both retrofits and new construction, the City can play a major role in energy conservation. There are two distinct approaches to solar heating: active and passive. The best method to encourage use of solar systems for heating and cooling is to not restrict their use in the zoning and building ordinances and to require subdivision layouts that facilitate solar use. Residential water heating can be made more energy efficient through the application of solar water heating technologies. Solar water heating uses the sun to heat water, which is then stored for later use; a conventional water heater is needed only as a backup. Solar water heating systems can lower energy bills and reduce GHG emissions. In response to legislation on global climate change, local governments are required to implement measures that cut GHG emissions attributable to land use decisions. Executive Order S-E-05 initiated the first steps in establishing GHG emission reduction targets in California. This was followed by the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which required the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish reduction measures. In November 2011, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP). In conjunction with other San Luis Obispo County jurisdictions, the City secured a $102,940 grant through the California Strategic Growth Council for the “Central Coast Collaborative CAP Implementation and Monitoring Program.” The collaborative implementation and monitoring program is an innovative strategy that will help the region achieve significant GHG reductions and allow them to track these reductions and determine overall progress toward achieving state goals. The program will provide a user-friendly tool to record data associated with CAPs and other GHG-reducing activities, which will result in tangible data regarding the effectiveness of GHG reduction strategies. Therefore, if strategies are not performing as well as initially expected, corrective action can be taken immediately to focus efforts on achieving the largest GHG reductions at the lowest cost. This work program will also include best practices for implementation of one of the GHG reduction strategies - an energy audit and retrofit program. The tools and best practices developed as part of this work program will provide valuable resources that can be implemented in other local and regional jurisdictions across the state. In addition to implanting GHG reduction programs as part of the CAP, there are several areas where the City supports programs for energy conservation in new and existing housing units: • Through application of state residential building standards that establish energy performance criteria for new residential buildings (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and California Energy Commission requirements). These regulations establish insulation, window glazing, air conditioning, and water heating system requirements. Active Systems use mechanical equipment to collect and transport heat, such as a roof plate collector system used in solar water and space heaters. Passive Systems use certain types of building materials to absorb solar energy and can transmit that energy later, without mechanization. Item 9.a. - Page 125 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 108 • Through appropriate land use policies and development standards that reduce energy consumption, such as promoting more compact, walkable neighborhoods, with housing close to jobs, community facilities and shopping; planning and zoning for mixed-use and higher-density development; and permitting accessory dwelling units. The following opportunities for energy conservation are also available to the City, homeowners, and developers: • PG&E provides a variety of energy conservation services for residents and provides several other energy assistance programs for lower-income households. These programs include their Energy Watch Partnerships and the Charitable Contributions Program. o The Energy Watch Partnerships help residents lower their energy bills and promote cleaner energy production. Through this program, PG&E has extended the reach of effectiveness of energy efficiency programs, and provided information about demand response programs, renewable energy, and self-generation opportunities. o The Charitable Contributions Program gives millions of dollars each year to non-profit organizations to support environmental and energy sustainability. Projects include residential and community solar energy distribution projects, public education projects, and energy efficiency programs. The goal is to ensure that 75 percent of the funding assists underserved communities, which includes low-income households, people with disabilities, and seniors. • PG&E also offers rebates for energy-efficient home appliances and remodeling. Rebates are available for cooling and heating equipment, lighting, seasonal appliances, and remodeling (cool roofs, insulation, water heaters). These opportunities are available to all income levels and housing types. • The Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (AB 1470) created a $250 million, 10- year program to provide consumer rebates for solar water heating systems. • Green Building Executive Order, S-20-04 (CA 2004), the Green Building Initiative, set a goal of reducing energy use in public and private buildings by 20 percent by the year 2015, as compared with 2003 levels. The initiative encourages residential development projects to increase energy efficiency percentage beyond Title 24 requirements. In addition, projects could implement other green building design (i.e., natural day lighting and on-site renewable, electricity generation). The City could also consider adopting standards that encourage or require specific LEED standards for green building. • The California Solar Initiative required installation of 1 million solar roofs or an equivalent 3,000 megawatts (MW) by 2017 on homes and businesses, increased use of solar thermal systems to offset the increasing demand for natural gas, use of advanced metering in solar applications, and creation of a funding source that can provide rebates over 10 years through a declining incentive schedule. The City should access the incentives that will be made available and provide information to developers, to encourage the installation of solar roofs on new residential development. • Arroyo Grande will join Central Coast Community Energy to implement community choice electricity sourcing beginning January 1,2021. Arroyo Grande will join most of the other cities in the county and much of the rest of the central coast of California to source their electricity from this company rather than PG&E in order to receive electricity from more renewable sources. Transmission of electricity will still be via PG&E transmission lines. Item 9.a. - Page 126 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 109 Program L.1-1 has been included to incorporate newly adopted state energy-efficiency standards and to encourage alternative energy-efficient technologies. 5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints This section provides information related to constraints to producing housing, specifically affordable housing, that result not from governmental regulation, but from other forces affecting the housing market. Primarily, this examines the economic factors that contribute to the price of housing in Arroyo Grande. Other factors that affect housing costs that are not addressed are sales and marketing costs, property taxes, and developer profits. Land Costs Land costs vary substantially based upon a number of factors. The main influences on land value are location and zoning, and to a degree, available supply of land. Land that is conveniently located in a desirable area that is zoned for residential uses will likely be more valuable, and thus more expensive. Based on a May 2020 survey of vacant parcels listed on Zillow.com, it is estimated that the median cost per acre of unimproved residential zoned land in the City is $370,000, ranging between $4,248 per acre and $997,417 per acre. Currently, some of these vacant lots are in more rural areas and are encouraged to be subdivided, potentially reducing the cost per acre. Improved lots can be even more costly. The price varies due to the site zoning, with higher-density zoned land being more expensive per acre (but less per unit). Land costs present a significant constraint to the production of affordable housing in the City. Construction Costs Construction costs are those incurred in actually constructing a dwelling unit. These costs can vary depending on the location or style of development. Important determinants of construction costs include the amenities built into the unit, materials used, the prevailing labor rate (a significant issue with subsidized affordable housing given recent legislation including SB 35), and the difficulty of building on the site. In Arroyo Grande, expansive soils may necessitate more extensive foundations for housing units. According to City records, the cost per square foot for construction in Arroyo Grande is $140 per square foot. Availability of Financing The availability of financing affects the ability to purchase or improve homes. In the Arroyo Grande area, 430 loan applications for home purchase or improvements were received in 2018, of which, 391 were conventional loans. Of the 391 conventional loan applications, 356 were for home purchase and 35 were for home improvements. Only 7.7 percent of the 391 conventional loans were denied, 6.6 percent were withdrawn or not accepted by the applicant, and 58.8 percent were approved and accepted. There were 39 applications for government-assisted home purchase or improvement loans (VA, FHA, FSA/RHS) in 2018. Of these, 18, or 46.2 percent of government-assisted loans were approved and accepted by the applicant. Table 5-14 shows the breakdown of loan applications by type, purpose, and outcome. Item 9.a. - Page 127 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 110 Table 5-14 Applications for Loans Type of Loan Number Percent Total 430 100.0% Conventional 391 90.9% Government-assisted 39 9.1% FHA-insured 14 35.9% VA-guaranteed 25 64.1% Loan purpose Conventional 391 100.0% Home Purchase 356 91.0% Home Improvement 35 9.0% Government-assisted 39 100.0% Home Purchase 38 97.4% Home Improvement 1 2.6% Loan Outcome Conventional 391 100.0% Approved and accepted 230 58.8% Denied 30 7.7% Withdrawn or not accepted 26 6.6% Closed/Incomplete 10 2.6% Purchased by Institution 60 15.3% Government-assisted 39 100.0% Approved and accepted 18 46.2% Denied 5 12.8% Withdrawn or not accepted 3 7.7% Closed/Incomplete 1 2.6% Purchased by Institution 10 25.6% Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 2018 Most (79.5 percent) applicants for government-assisted loans had an annual income equivalent to or greater than the County median income of $71,148 in 2018. Similarly, over 92.6 percent of conventional loan applicants earned greater than the County median income. Of all originated loans, 4.4 percent were awarded and accepted by applicants with less than median household income. Item 9.a. - Page 128 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 111 CHAPTER 6 - REGIONAL VISION FOR HOUSING In early 2020, local agencies adopted a San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact to establish a united regional framework to unlock our potential to develop an adequate supply of housing and infrastructure that support our economic prosperity. Overview San Luis Obispo County is a rural coastal county with seven vibrant cities and numerous unincorporated communities that depend on collaborative relationships between and among government agencies, community organizations, and residents to solve the region’s significant issues, including inadequate supply of affordable housing and resilient water, wastewater, and transportation infrastructure and resources. The County and all seven cities are working collaboratively to develop the region’s first Regional Infrastructure and Housing Strategic Action Plan (Regional Plan) that will identify actions to address these issues. A key component of the Regional Plan is the integration of efforts to address critical housing and related infrastructure needs. As part of the Housing Element update process, representatives of the County, seven cities, and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) developed this section to showcase the ongoing commitment of each agency to this collaborative effort. This section presents a regional vision and policies focused specifically on fostering regional collaboration to plan and develop housing and supportive infrastructure. Alignment with Regional Compact This effort is guided by the San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact (Regional Compact). The Regional Compact, adopted by each jurisdiction in early 2020, outlines six shared regional goals to guide collaborative resolution of underlying housing and infrastructure needs: Goal 1. Strengthen Community Quality of Life – We believe that our Region’s quality of life depends on four cornerstones to foster a stable and healthy economy for all: resilient infrastructure and resources, adequate housing supply, business opportunities, and educational pathways. Goal 2. Share Regional Prosperity – We believe that our Region should share the impacts and benefits of achieving enduring quality of life among all people, sectors and interests. Goal 3. Create Balanced Communities – We believe that our Region should encourage new development that helps to improve the balance of jobs and housing throughout the Region, providing more opportunities to residents to live and work in the same community. Goal 4. Value Agriculture & Natural Resources – We believe that our Region’s unique agricultural resources, open space, and natural environments play a vital role in sustaining healthy local communities and a healthy economy, and therefore should be purposefully protected. Goal 5. Support Equitable Opportunities – We believe that our Region should support policies, actions, and incentives that increase housing development of all types, available to people at all income levels. Goal 6. Foster Accelerated Housing Production – We believe that our Region must achieve efficient planning and production of housing and focus on strategies that produce the greatest impact. Item 9.a. - Page 129 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 112 Policies It will take regional collaboration and local actions to realize the vision and goals outlined in the Regional Compact. Below is an initial list of aspirational regional policies that further the Regional Compact vision, in addition to local policies. By listing these below, it does not mandate any individual agency to implement actions, but rather offers ways that the County, cities, SLOCOG, and other partners can consider moving forward together. In addition, and consistent with each Housing Element cycle, each of the seven cities and the County has the opportunity to choose to implement local policies and programs that help to support their achievement of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and if an agency chooses to, can also support the Regional Compact vision and goals in a way that works for its jurisdiction and community. Please see Chapter 2 above for a discussion of the local goals, policies, and programs that Arroyo Grande anticipates undertaking during this Housing Element cycle. R-1: Promote awareness and support of regional efforts that further housing and infrastructure resiliency by using community engagement and consistent and transparent communication. R-2: Encourage an adequate housing supply and resilient infrastructure, services, and resources to improve the balance of jobs and housing throughout the region. R-3: Develop inter-agency partnerships as appropriate to implement goals and policies related to housing and infrastructure. R-4: Coordinate state, federal, and other funding opportunities for housing and infrastructure development throughout the region. R-5: Encourage developers to sell newly constructed housing units to individuals residing or employed within the area of the development (a city or the County) first before selling to individuals from outside the County, to promote local preference. R-6: Encourage rental units be prioritized for long-term residents rather than short-term users or vacation rentals. R-7: Support housing development that is located within existing communities and strategically planned areas. R-8: Encourage regional collaboration on a menu of housing types, models, and efforts to support streamlined approvals for such developments (e.g., Accessory Dwelling Units, etc.). Moving Forward The County, cities, SLOCOG, and other partners engaged in housing and infrastructure development will continue to collaborate on efforts moving forward – recognizing the benefits of working together to achieve an enduring quality of life among the region’s people, sectors, and interests. This ongoing collaboration will include learning from each other and sharing possible tools, policies, and actions that can allow the collective region to move towards our adopted Regional Compact vision. Ongoing collaborative efforts will be described in the Regional Plan, anticipated to be complete in 2021, and related regional efforts will live outside of each individual agency’s Housing Element. Item 9.a. - Page 130 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 113 Chapter 7 – REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT This chapter evaluates and reports on the status and implementation of the programs of the 2014– 2019 Housing Element. The main purpose is to evaluate which programs were successful and should be continued, and which programs were ineffective and should be eliminated or modified. Table 6-1 includes the programs identified in the 2014–2019 Housing Element followed by a brief evaluation or status comment. Item 9.a. - Page 131 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 114 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? A.1-1. The City shall establish a five-year schedule of actions to implement the goals and policies of the Housing Element. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Department Timeframe: Ongoing – implemented over the life of the Housing Element Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Timeline for implementing Housing Element programs Quantified Objective: n/a An implementation schedule of goals and policies are outlined in the Housing Element but many of the programs associated with these goals and policies have not yet been implemented due to staff constraints. The City will continue to implement programs based on the timeframe under each program. This program is not needed on top of the information in each program. Delete. A.1-2. The City shall report annually on its progress in meeting its fair share housing targets, and provide the collected information to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), development community, and non-profit housing developers. HCD provides specific instructions and a template for the annual report. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Annually – due to HCD in April Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Annual assessment and reporting on progress meeting Housing Element housing targets and implementation of programs Quantified Objective: n/a The City reports annually on progress towards Housing Element implementation and reaching the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) target. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 132 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 115 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? A.1-3 The City shall amend the Development Code to revise the requirements for the Traffic Way Mixed Use District to remove the limitation to only live-work residential uses. A mix of residential use types shall be allowed as allowed in all of the mixed use zoning districts (except the Industrial Mixed Use District). The Development Code shall also be amended to allow residential projects at densities up to 20 units per acre in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment Quantified Objective: 10 moderate-income units, 10 above moderate-income units The City has not amended the Development Code regarding the limitations on uses. The densities for the Traffic Way Mixed-Use District have also not been amended. This is due to staff constraints. This program will be continued. Continue. A.2-1. The City shall continue to encourage and publicize on the City’s website the secondary dwelling program to increase public awareness. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is continued consistent production of secondary units as an affordable housing alternative Quantified Objective: 5 units/year during the planning period. Total of 30 low-income units for the planning period. The Development Code was updated in October 2017 regarding accessory dwelling units for compliance with state law (Ordinance No. 688). The City has continued to monitor impacts to accessory dwelling units from short-term rentals. Currently, the City provides information about accessory dwelling units on the City’s website, including development standards, procedures, and fees. This program will be continued and will include further amendments to the ordinance to address recent updates to state law. Amend to address updates in state law and add additional City efforts to promote ADUs and continue. Item 9.a. - Page 133 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 116 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? A.3-1. The City shall amend the Municipal Code to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing projects, including expedited permitting, providing financial assistance through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund, requiring lot consolidation, and providing greater flexibility in development standards. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element Adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Additional affordable units Quantified Objective: 5 very low-income and 5 low-income units The Municipal Code has not yet been amended to include these incentives for affordable housing projects. However, impact fees have been reduced for affordable housing projects. In addition, the City has received funding through Senate Bill 2 to revise zoning to streamline review of affordable housing projects. This program has not successfully been implemented due to staff constraints and will be continued. Continue. A.3-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to include the definition of “Extremely Low-Income” as defined by Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment Quantified Objective: n/a The definition of “extremely low-income” has not yet been included in the Development Code. Extremely low-income households earn 30 percent or less of the median household income. The City relies on the County’s affordable housing standards, which define extremely low- income households. This does not need inclusion in the City’s Development Code. This program will not be continued. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 134 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 117 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? A.3-3. The City shall amend the Development Code to provide additional incentives specific for extremely low-income housing projects. Incentives may include flexible standards for on- and off-site improvements such as reduced parking requirements, reduced curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements; reduced or deferred water and/or sewer connection fees; permit streamlining procedures and development review; or financial incentives and assistance. Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Administration and Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Draft program or ordinance to incentivize and/or streamline permitting and procedures for extremely low- income housing developments Quantified Objective: 2 extremely low-income units The City has not yet amended the Development Code regarding additional incentives for extremely low-income housing projects. The City continues to monitor evolving state legislation associated with housing to ensure this has not been addressed or preempted. This program will be continued. Continue. A.10-1 To facilitate affordable housing, the City shall comply with State Density Bonus Law. The City shall update Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with AB 2280. The City will continue to update Chapter 16.82 on an ongoing basis to comply with any future updates to State Density Bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) as well as evaluate proposed Development Code amendments to assess whether they pose any constraints to developer utilization of density bonuses. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Amend Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with AB 2280 – Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption; Assess Development Code Amendments - Ongoing Funding: General Fund The City has not completed the Development Code amendment to comply with recent changes to State Density Bonus Law due to staff constraints. The City continues to comply with state law and offers density bonuses to eligible projects under state law. This program will be continued. Amend to reflect recent updates to state law and continue. Item 9.a. - Page 135 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 118 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? Expected Outcome: City-initiated Development Code Amendments Quantified Objective: n/a A.10-2. The City shall evaluate and amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit procedures in the Development Code (Section 16.16.060) to provide more predictable options for small lot infill projects in the City’s Residential land use designations. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Improve the requirements and standards for the PUD process Quantified Objective: 10 moderate and 10 above moderate- income units The Development Code has not been amended regarding the PUD permit procedures due to staff constraints. This program will be addressed as needed through other programs and will not be continued. Delete. A.10-3. To encourage higher densities and reduce constraints to multi- family housing production, the City shall amend the Development Code to allow densities up to 20 du/ac in the Office Mixed Use (OMU) District for 100% multi-family housing projects with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural Review Committee. Mixed-use projects will continue to have a maximum allowed density of 20 du/ac. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Remove barrier to construct affordable housing Quantified Objective: n/a The City has not completed the Development Code amendment to allow for increased density in the OMU District due to staff constraints. This program will be continued. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 136 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 119 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? A.12-1. The City shall continue to maintain its Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping and planning database inventory of vacant and underutilized “opportunity sites”. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: On going Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Maintain land availability inventory Quantified Objective: n/a The City maintains a geographic information system (GIS) database inventory of vacant and underutilized “opportunity sites.” This program has been successfully implemented and will be continued. Continue. A.14-1. The City shall amend the Development Code to include a definition of the term “Attainable housing.” Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Development Code amendment Quantified Objective: n/a The Development Code has not yet been amended to include the definition of “Attainable Housing.” This effort will be achieved through an “Affordable Housing” program. The City envisions assessing whether proposed projects include “Attainable Housing” as applications are submitted. This amendment to the Development Code is not needed to further affordable housing objectives. This program will not be continued. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 137 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 120 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? A.15-1. The City shall establish a program to provide assistance to first-time home buyers. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund; HCD Home Investments Partnerships Program (HOME) Expected Outcome: Development of a first-time home buyers program Quantified Objective: n/a In the years following the 2008 recession, a number of the units originally restricted to families earning a moderate income were sold at market rate because the formula used to determine sales price was such that market rate prices were lower than income-restricted prices. By default, the program acted like a first-time home buyer’s program. However, a formal first- time home buyer program has not been established. This program will be continued. Continue. B.1-1. The City shall continue tracking all residential projects that include affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is maintained for at least 45 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental units, and that any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 45 or 55-year restriction shall be “rolled over” for another 45 or 55 years to protect “at-risk” units. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing – at time of change of ownership Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Program to monitor affordable units Quantified Objective: n/a The City tracks all affordable projects through a database, inputting any updates regarding ownership or affordability when they occur. This program will be continued. Combine with Programs E.4-1, I.1-1, and I-2.1, update for consistency with state law, and continue. Item 9.a. - Page 138 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 121 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? B.2-1. The City may contract with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), local non-profit organizations, or a regional monitoring agency for the monitoring of affordable units to ensure compliance with terms of the development agreement. Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Administration and Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: Fees for service Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is consistent monitoring of affordable units. Quantified Objective: n/a The City has an agreement with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) for affordable housing eligibility verification and compliance. The City is also a member of the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (SLOCHTF), which provides ongoing technical assistance. This program will be continued. Continue. B.6-1. The City shall monitor the loss of permanent workforce housing from vacation rentals and consider modifying the Development Code to adjust for this loss. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Program to monitor vacation rentals Quantified Objective: n/a The Development Code prohibits homestays and vacation rentals from being located within 300 feet of an existing homestay or vacation rental on the same street. To date, the City has approved 33 homestays and 47 vacation rental applications. The City has an increased interest in monitoring rental loss due to state housing legislation. The City will continue to monitor the number of permits issued for homestays and vacation rentals to determine impacts to housing. Amend to remove term workforce and continue. Item 9.a. - Page 139 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 122 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? C.1-1. The City shall continue to allocate financial resources to augment extremely low, very low, and low-income housing development based on the financial projection of the In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund. Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust Fund/Other sources, as identified Expected Outcome: Funding to finance affordable housing Quantified Objective: 3 extremely low, 3 very low, and 20 low- income units The Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust Fund will continue to devote funds to affordable housing projects for people of extremely low, very low, and low income. For instance, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund was used to offset impact fees for a Habitat for Humanity project approved in 2018. That project will construct eight single- family residences that will be deed restricted for very low-income households and is expected to begin construction in 2020. This program will be continued. Continue. C.4-1. The City shall continue to meet with local non-profit and private developers semi-annually, or more frequently if opportunities arise, to promote the extremely low, very low, and low-income housing programs outlined in the Housing Element. The City shall direct private housing developers to funding sources (such as federal and State housing grant fund programs and local housing trust funds) to promote affordable housing as outlined in the policies of Goal C. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Semi-annually Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased awareness of the City’s desire to provide affordable housing and to accommodate affordable housing Quantified Objective: n/a The City continues to promote the development of affordable housing opportunities for people of extremely low, very low, and low income, including through its relationships with HASLO and SLOCHTF. This program will be continued. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 140 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 123 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? C.4-2. The City shall continue to participate in financial incentive programs established by the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (SLOCHTF), such as a revolving loan program. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Semi-annually Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased awareness of the City’s desire to provide affordable housing and to accommodate affordable housing Quantified Objective: n/a The City continues to receive local housing funding through the SLOCHTF. This program will be continued. Continue. D.1-1. The City shall encourage specific plans for land within its Sphere of Influence that include increased residential capacity for multiple- family development. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: On-going, as specific plans are approved Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Possible increased land inventory to support affordable housing No specific plans with multiple-family development have been developed since adoption of the previous housing element. Multiple-family developments will continue to be encouraged through specific plans. This program will continue to be implemented. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 141 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 124 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? E.4-1. When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property owners of deed restricted affordable units who need to sell within 45 years of initial sale. When the seller is unable to sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period, equity sharing provisions are established (as per the affordable housing agreement for the property) whereby the difference between the affordable and market value is paid to the City to eliminate any incentive to sell the converted unit at market rate. Funds generated would then be used to develop additional affordable housing within the City. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Maintaining affordability of deed restricted affordable units Quantified Objective: n/a The City will continue to support the affordable housing agreement of properties, working with property owners, as needed, who need to sell deed- restricted affordable units. This program will be continued. Combine with Programs B.1-1, I.1-1, and I-2.1, update for consistency with state law and continue. F.1-1. The City shall evaluate and amend the inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80) based on experience using the requirements in producing affordable units. Potential changes to the requirements include: (1) consider contracting with a housing management organization to manage deed-restricted affordable units in the City; (2) consider adding incentives to encourage construction of rental units; and (3) investigate extending the income categories served by the inclusionary requirements to extremely low income households. The City will engage the development community during the evaluation process. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 4 years of Housing Element adoption The City has not amended the Development Code regarding the inclusionary affordable housing requirements. This program will be continued. Combine with Program F-1.3 and continue. Item 9.a. - Page 142 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 125 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Amendments to the inclusionary affordable housing requirements Quantified Objective: 2 extremely low, 5 very low, 10 low, and 15 moderate-income units F.1-2. The City shall amend the inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80) to eliminate inclusion of moderate-income units in the requirements. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Amendments to the inclusionary affordable housing requirements Quantified Objective: n/a The City has not amended the Development Code eliminating the inclusion of moderate-income units in the inclusionary affordable housing requirements. The City does this in practice through the subdivision process. Fees are collected in-lieu of providing deed- restricted moderate-income units. This program is no longer needed and will not be continued. Delete. F.1-3. The City shall amend the in-lieu fee as called for in the inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80). Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Quantified Objective: n/a The City has not amended the Development Code due to staff constraints but has developed a preliminary methodology to amending this in-lieu fee. This program will be continued. Combine with Program F.1-1 and continue. Item 9.a. - Page 143 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 126 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? G.1-1. The City shall work with non-profit organizations to maintain a mailing list of persons interested in development projects containing affordable housing. Agendas for all City meetings related to these projects shall be mailed to persons on the mailing list. The City shall also continue to post the agendas on the City’s website. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased public awareness of affordable housing projects. Quantified Objective: n/a The City publishes all meeting materials on its website and encourages everyone to sign up for notification when new agendas are published. The City utilizes its contacts at HASLO and SLOCHTF to help inform interested individuals. This program will be continued. Continue. G.1-2. The City shall encourage construction and/or rehabilitation of housing units for low, very-low, and extremely low income households by developing and implementing incentive-based programs such as fee reductions, fee waivers, flexible development standards, updating the City’s second unit ordinance to reduce barriers to second units development in residential zones, and similar programs. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased provision of affordable housing Quantified Objective: 2 extremely low, 2 very low, and 2 low- income units The City has updated its accessory dwelling unit ordinance and will adopt new amendments consistent with changes in state law. The City has not developed incentive-based programs due to staff constraints. This program will be continued. This program overlaps with several other programs and is not needed in the updated housing element. This program will not be continued. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 144 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 127 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? G.1-3. The City shall amend the Development Code to allow development of up to 15 multiple-family attached units in the MF and MFA zoning districts with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural Review Committee. Development of over 15 multiple-family attached units in the MF and MFA zoning districts shall require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Remove barrier to construct affordable housing Quantified Objective: n/a The City has not amended the Development Code. This program will be continued. Amend and continue. H.1-1. The City shall continue to coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority to maintain and expand Section 8 rental housing assistance to qualified households. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing, when eligible Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Continued affordable housing. Quantified Objective: n/a The City coordinates with HASLO regarding Section 8 housing assistance when needed. This program will continue to be implemented. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 145 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 128 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? H.1-2. The City shall develop a program to offer housing developers an alternative to meet affordable housing requirements by contributing some “sweat equity” on projects where existing housing units will be rehabilitated or conserved as affordable as per the City’s Affordable Housing Program. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Conservation and rehabilitation of existing housing stock Quantified Objective: 5 low-income housing units Opportunities are evaluated on a case-by- case basis. This program will be continued. Continue. H.2-1. The City shall continue to consider abatement of unsafe or unsanitary structures, including buildings or rooms inappropriately used for housing, contrary to adopted health and safety codes. Where feasible, the City will encourage rehabilitation and allow reasonable notice and time to correct deficiencies. Where necessary and feasible, extremely low, very low and low-income residents displaced by abatement action shall be eligible for relocation assistance, subject to Council approval. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Conservation of existing housing stock Quantified Objective: n/a This is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This program will be continued. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 146 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 129 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? I.1-1. Written notice shall be required prior to the conversion of any units for low-income households to market rate units in any of the following circumstances: • The units were constructed with the aid of government funding • The units were required by an inclusionary zoning ordinance • The project was granted a density bonus • The project received other incentives The property owner should work with the City and affordable housing developers, such as HASLO, to identify qualified buyers and/or funding prior to conversion. In cases where conversions occur, notice shall at a minimum be given to the following: • The City of Arroyo Grande • State Department of Housing and Community Development • San Luis Obispo Housing Authority • Residents of at-risk units Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Preservation of existing affordable units Quantified Objective: n/a The City maintains a database of restricted units that is leveraged to determine when these situations arise. This program will be continued. Combine this program with Programs B.1-1, E-4.1, and I-2.1, amend to comply with state law and continue. Item 9.a. - Page 147 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 130 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? I.2-1. The City shall annually monitor the status of affordable housing developments. If any property owners indicate plans to convert affordable units to market rate pricing, or if the City identifies market conditions indicating potential for “at risk” unit conversion, the City will contact qualified non-profit organizations or other agencies and explore opportunities to assist and facilitate the transfer ownership of “at risk” units. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Preservation of existing affordable units Quantified Objective: n/a The City monitors the development of affordable housing, classifying the development of new units based on income brackets of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. The City will continue to ensure the availability of affordable housing units for people of very low and low income. This program will be continued. Combine this program with Programs B.1-1, I.1-1, and E-4.1, amend to comply with state law and continue. J.1-1. The City shall continue to promote housing opportunities for seniors and other special needs groups by identifying sites suitable for senior and transitional housing and considering other incentives to promote senior and transitional housing. Single-room occupancy units (SROs) shall be added to the use tables in the Development Code allowed in all Mixed-Use zones with a conditional use permit. SROs shall be allowed in the MFVH zone district with a minor use permit. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Identifying sites - Ongoing; Development Code Amendments – Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities for seniors and other special needs groups Quantified Objective: 5 extremely low and 10 very low-income units Within the planning period, a senior living project consisting of 69 beds was approved and staff processed a pre-application for another senior living complex consisting of 120 beds. Staff provided feedback on constraints of the site. No further implementation has occurred. The program will be continued. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 148 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 131 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? J.5-1. To encourage farmworker housing, the City will amend the zoning ordinance to identify farmworker housing as a residential use in the use tables. The City Zoning Ordinance will be amended to ensure that permit processing procedures for farmworker housing do not conflict with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, which states that farmworker housing for six or fewer employees should be “deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation”, and 17021.6 which states that for "employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household...no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone”. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities for farmworkers Quantified Objective: 5 very low-income units The City has not amended the Development Code due to staff constraints. This program will be continued. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 149 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 132 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? K.1-1. The City shall continue to participate in the South San Luis Obispo County working group cooperating with other cities, the county and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at providing homeless shelters and related services. Responsible agency/department: Community Development/City Manager Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Continued cooperation in providing homeless shelter and services Quantified Objective: n/a The City continues to work with the County and other relevant agencies in providing homeless shelters and related services. The City provides grant funding to the 5 Cities Homeless Coalition through its allocation of Community Development Block Grant federal funds and through the City’s Jim Guthrie Community Service Grant Program for homeless services. This program will be continued. Continue. K.2-1. The City shall amend the Development Code to allow emergency shelters without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permits in appropriate locations in compliance with SB 2, the “Fair Share Zoning” law. The Development Code amendment shall include a definition for “emergency shelter.” Emergency shelters are currently not allowed in commercial mixed-use districts, and are allowed through the Conditional Use Permit process in the Condominium/ Townhouse (MF), Apartments (MFA) and Multifamily Very High Density (MFVH) residential districts. The Development Code shall be updated to require administrative approval only for emergency shelters in the Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU) and Highway Mixed-Use (HMU) districts. These commercial districts have sufficient capacity to house emergency shelters with approximately 18 acres of vacant or underutilized land available. The IMU district has several large parcels totaling almost 13.5 acres with ten (10) acres that are currently used as storage and/or construction yards with small or no permanent structures. The HMU district has less potential, although there are about four acres with a couple of large vacant parcels totaling 1.64 acres. About 6.36 of the 18 acres have some type of permanent structure on the individual parcels, but could be redeveloped to accommodate transitional housing. Transitional Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April 2016 to amend the Development Code regarding Emergency Shelters and Supportive and Transitional Housing. This program has been implemented. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 150 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 133 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? and supportive housing shall be defined as residential uses subject to the same standards that apply to other housing. The Development Code can include locational and operational criteria for emergency shelters such as: • Proximity of public transit, supportive services, and commercial services; • Hours of operation; • External lighting and noise; • Provision of security measures for the proper operation and management of a proposed facility; • Measures to avoid queues of individuals outside proposed facility; and • Compliance with county and State health and safety requirements for food, medical, and other supportive services provided onsite. Such criteria can act to encourage and facilitate emergency shelters and transitional housing through clear and unambiguous guidelines for the application review process, the basis for approval, and the terms and conditions of approval. The City will solicit input from local service providers and the South San Luis Obispo County working group in the preparation and adoption of the amendment to the Development Code to ensure that development standards and permit processing will not impede the approval and/or development of emergency and transitional housing. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Concurrently with Housing Element adoption (per Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)) Funding: General Fund Item 9.a. - Page 151 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 134 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is compliance with SB 2 regarding emergency shelters. Quantified Objective: n/a K.2-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to define transitional and supportive housing as residential uses per Section 65582 of the Government Code subject to the same standards that apply to other housing in the same zone. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is compliance with Housing Element law regarding transitional and supportive housing. Quantified Objective: n/a Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April 2016 to amend the Development Code regarding Emergency Shelters and Supportive and Transitional Housing. This program has been implemented. Delete. K.2-3. The City may consider implementing an overnight parking program, or a similar program, for the homeless in appropriate zoning districts. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Provide approved parking locations for the homeless to sleep Quantified Objective: n/a An overnight parking program has not yet been established. This program will be continued. Amend and continue. Item 9.a. - Page 152 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 135 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? L.1-1. The City shall explore models to encourage the creation of housing for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. Such models could include coordinating with the Tri-County Regional Center and other local agencies in encouraging affordable housing projects to dedicate a percent of housing for disabled individuals; assisting in housing development; providing housing services that educate, advocate, inform, and assist people to locate and maintain housing; and models to assist in the maintenance and repair of housing for persons with developmental disabilities. Responsible agency/department: Building Department/Community Development Timeframe: Establish a model program within 5 years of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased access to housing and housing resources for disabled persons; including information and services available for developmentally disabled persons Quantified Objective: 5 low income units The City has not coordinated with the Tri- Counties Regional Center. However, the City will continue to explore models to encourage development of housing for persons with disabilities. This program will continue to be implemented. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 153 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 136 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? L.2-1. The City shall create a policy or amend the Development Code to provide persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing an opportunity to request reasonable accommodation in the application of City building and zoning laws. Responsible agency/department: Building Department/Community Development Timeframe: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Greater accessibility for disabled persons accommodated through the design review process for discretionary residential projects Quantified Objective: n/a The City has not amended the Development Code to provide an opportunity to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities due to staff constraints. This program will be continued. Continue. L.2-2. The City will have brochures on universal design available at the Community Development Department front counter. The City will also consider updating the building code to encourage use of universal design in home design. Universal design is based on the precept that throughout life, all people experience changes in their abilities. The goal of universal design is to provide environments that are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for specialization in design and construction and/or facilitate change in occupancy over time. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Develop brochure(s) - within 1 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Greater accessibility for disabled persons accommodated through project design Quantified Objective: n/a The City has not yet made progress promoting the universal design concept but discusses the topic with residential developers when the opportunity presents itself. Due to limitations on staff resources, this program will not be continued. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 154 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 137 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? M.1-1. The City shall continue working to implement a water and electrical retrofit program for existing housing units. A plumbing retrofit program was established in 2004, and water conservation rebate programs were established in 2009. The City will continue to work with PG&E and other agencies to establish an electrical retrofit program. Responsible agency/department: Building Department Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund/PG&E Expected Outcome: Reduce usage of water and electrical resources Quantified Objective: n/a The City has continued to promote Water Conservation Incentive programs, including the Plumbing Retrofit Program, as well as rebate and education programs. The City has also been involved in the San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, a joint project between San Luis Obispo County, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company. In 2013, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan and partnered with San Luis Obispo County jurisdictions to receive a California Strategic Growth Council grant to develop an implementation and monitoring program. The program provides tools and best practices for implementing all Climate Action Plan (CAP) programs, such as the energy audit and retrofit program. This program will be updated to reflect current program information and continued. Amend and continue. M.1-2. Consistent with Measure E-4 of the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City shall establish a program to allow residential projects to receive minor exceptions if they meet 25% of items on the Tier 1 list of the California Green Building Code (Title 24) or 15% of items on the Tier 2 list of that code. Responsible agency/department: Building Department Timeframe: Establish program within 1 year of Housing Element adoption Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Encourage energy efficiency in new residential buildings Quantified Objective: n/a The City has yet to establish a program regarding minor exceptions for residential projects that meet a minimum number of items from the California Green Building Code. This program will be continued. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 155 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 138 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? N.1-1. The City will continue to promote the enforcement of policies of the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission, and shall resolve housing discrimination complaints through assistance from HUD, and/or local, regional private fair housing organizations. The City will prepare a brochure that promotes equal housing opportunities and addresses discrimination. The brochure will be available at the Community Development department and a link to download the brochure will be placed on the City’s website. In addition the City shall disseminate information in one or more of the following ways to ensure the public is aware of Fair Housing Law: • Distribute materials to property owners and apartment managers twice a year. • Make public service announcements through multiple media outlets including newspaper, radio, television, and social media to run on a regular basis. • Conduct public presentations with different community groups once or twice a year. Responsible agency/department: All City Departments Timeframe: Ongoing. Brochure available within one year of housing element adoption, strategy to implement Urban County Team fair housing program within one year of County Fair Housing Plan adoption. Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Dissemination of information at the front counter of all City Departments. Quantified Objective: n/a The City has not yet prepared a brochure to promote equal housing opportunities and address discrimination or disseminated information about the Fair Housing Law to the public. This program will be continued. Continue. Item 9.a. - Page 156 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 139 Table 6-1 Review of 2014-2019 Housing Element Programs Program Number 2014–2019 Housing Element Programs Status of Program Continue? Amend? Delete in 2020–2028 Housing Element? O.1.1. Prior to any public hearing where the City is considering amending or updating its Housing Element or housing policies, the City will notify all local housing organizations, as well as social service agencies, and post notices at significant locations. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Provide information about housing programs Quantified Objectives: n/a The City will continue to notify the necessary organizations, agencies, and other parties when amending or updating the Housing Element or housing policies. This program will be continued. Continue. P.1-1. Following amendment of the General Plan Conservation/Open Space and Safety Elements to comply with AB 162 related to floodplain mapping, the City will amend the Housing Element if needed for consistency. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Within 1 year of updates of the General Plan Conservation and Safety Elements Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Consistency between General Plan elements related to floodplain mapping and associated constraints. Quantified Objectives: n/a The City has not yet amended the General Plan Conservation and Safety Elements to comply with Assembly Bill 162 due to staff constraints. Following any amendments, the Housing Element will be modified, as necessary. This program will be implemented when those elements are updated but will not be continued as a Housing Element program. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 157 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 140 Item 9.a. - Page 158 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 141 Appendix Item 9.a. - Page 159 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 142 Appendix A: Public Outreach List Organization/Name Homebuilder’s Association Central Coast Government Affairs Committee Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo SLO County YIMBYs First 5 SLO People’s Self Help Housing 5 Cities Homeless Coalition South County Chamber of Commerce Economic Vitality Corporation Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO) California Rural Legal Assistance – SLO Office Item 9.a. - Page 160 Item 9.a. - Page 161 P.O. Box 1316 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 t 805.457.5557 www.placeworks.com Item 9.a. - Page 162 December 2020 | General Plan EIR Addendum ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR SCH No. 2000121027 FOR THE 2020–2028 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE City of Arroyo Grande Prepared for: City of Arroyo Grande Andrew Perez, Associate Planner 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 805.473.5425 Prepared by: PlaceWorks Amy Sinsheimer, AICP, Senior Associate P.O. Box 1316 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 805.439.1922 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com EXHIBIT B ATTACHMENT 3 Item 9.a. - Page 163 Item 9.a. - Page 164 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E Table of Contents December 2020 Page i Section Page 1. ADDENDUM TO THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN EIR ............................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 GENERAL PLAN EIR ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM ......................................................................................................... 20 2. CEQA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 22 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 22 1.6 FINDING .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Table Page TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR .............................................. 3 TABLE 1-2 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM CHANGES BETWEEN EXISTING HOUSING ELEMENT AND 2020–2028 HOUSING ELEMENT ................................................................................................... 7 Item 9.a. - Page 165 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E Table of Contents Page ii PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. Item 9.a. - Page 166 December 2020 Page 1 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR 1.1 BACKGROUND The proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element (proposed project) will replace the existing 2014–2019 Housing Element and serve as the City of Arroyo Grande’s (City’s) guiding policy document to meet future housing needs for City residents at all economic levels. The Housing Element is only one of the 10 elements of the General Plan. This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City’s proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element update. This addendum to the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2000121027) demonstrates that the analysis in that EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none of the conditions exist that are described in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. From the introductory remarks of the General Plan, the General Plan is the foundation development policy document of the City of Arroyo Grande. It defines the framework by which the physical, economic, and human resources of the City are to be managed and utilized over time. By providing a basis for rational decision- making, this document guides civic decisions regarding: • land use and circulation; • the design and/or character of buildings, open spaces, streets and other features; • the conservation of existing housing and the provision of new dwelling units; • the provision of supporting infrastructure and public services; • the protection of environmental resources and agricultural uses; • the protection of residents from natural and human-caused hazards; and, • topics of other elements. The General Plan acts to clarify and articulate the intentions of the City with respect to the rights and expectations of the public, property owners, and prospective investors and business interests. The Plan informs these citizens of the goals, objectives, policies, and standards for development of the City of Arroyo Grande and the responsibilities of all sectors in meeting these. While the General Plan EIR did not address the current or proposed Housing Element, the policies in the General Plan address all physical development in Arroyo Grande. As a policy document, the Housing Element does not result in physical changes to the environment but encourages the provision of affordable housing within the housing development buildout projected within the existing land use designations in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. None of the policies in the proposed project would change the existing land use pattern as established by the General Plan and evaluated in the EIR. All future construction within the city must comply with the General Plan, development code, state Item 9.a. - Page 167 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 2 PlaceWorks and federal permits, and local development standards. In addition, future discretionary actions (e.g., use permits, site plan review) require independent and project-specific environmental review. 1.2 GENERAL PLAN EIR The General Plan EIR found that with the implementation of policies and programs from the General Plan, the following environmental topic areas would be mitigated to less than significant: Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Geophysical, Water, Biological Resources, Hazards, Public Services, Utility and Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Recreation. The General Plan EIR found the following topics not significant: Noise and Energy and Mineral Resources. Additionally, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the following: Water Resources, Air Quality, and Transportation and Circulation. Item 9.a. - Page 168 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Pa ge 3 Table 1-1 below provides a summary of the program impacts. This table identifies mitigation measures recommended in response to subarea and project impacts identified in the EIR and a determination of the level of significance of the impact after mitigation. Table 1-1 Summary of Program Impacts Identified in the EIR Environmental Impact Topic – Area Less Than Significant Area of Potential Significance – Project Mitigation Measures General Plan Policy Mitigation Impact After Mitigation Land Use and Planning Developed areas of the City will remain unchanged from the 1990 General Plan and existing use, except within 12 Land Use Study subareas identified. Change areas are mitigated by proposed alternative, General Plan policy, or requirement for project EIR. Less than significant impacts determined for following study areas: 1) Oak Park Acres at James Way-Church and school classified CF. 5) Printz, Noyes and Oak Park Roads–Northern Sphere of Influence (SOI)–Exclude 700+ acres from SOI, retaining 60 acres on Highway 227. 6) Camino Mercado–cemetery classified CF. Other lots classified MU-PD–less than significant except possible regional commercial uses. 7WN&E) Village Core expansion to exclude existing residential areas classified SFR-MD areas to be SFR-MD. 7W&S) Village Area former HC and GC zoned areas classified MU. Southeast of Cherry retained Agriculture except hill area SFR–LD&C/OS. 7E) Former RR classified 21 acres area on Myrtle & Cherry to be SFR-LD, LM or MD: 20, 50 or 95 ± dwelling units potential vs. 20 dwelling units at prior = Less than significant assuming Agriculture buffer. 9) Valley Road Agriculture to remain outside SOI classified County Agriculture. 10) Farrall Avenue 10 acres at SFR-LM or MD, 25 to 45 dwelling units. 11) East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use Corridors—exclude existing residential areas classified SFR-MD. 12) El Camino Real existing industrial, commercial office, and residential uses classified MU. Land Use Study Areas involving potentially significant impacts–Require project EIRs to resolve mitigation measures: 2) Rancho Grande–Noyes Road 53 acres at SFR-LD-PD & C/OS = 35 dwelling units maximum. 3) Rancho Grande-La Canada 27 acres at CLOS-S-PD- 5 dwelling units maximum (Require EIR if General Plan Amendment [GPA] for more than 5 dwelling units PD). 4) Royal Oaks estates 37 acres at SFR-LD-PD&C/OS = 20 dwelling units maximum. 5) Northern SOI 60 acres at SFR-LD-PD = 60 dwelling units maximum. 6) Camino Mercado (Regional Commercial uses may require project EIRs). 7E) Myrtle & Cherry 21 acres at SFR-MD = 95 dwelling units maximum. Require EIR and PD if GPA for more than SFR-MD-PD. 8) Frederick/ALC & Williams SOI classified SP & SP Reserve. Require EIR prior to development or annexation. 10) Farrall Avenue 10 acres at SFR-MD-PD or MFR-PD if GPA for more than 45 dwelling units may require project EIR. 11) East Grand Avenue Mixed Use area projects may require project EIRs. 12) El Camino Real commercial or industrial use projects may require project EIRs, depending on new uses. 1) LU 9. 2) LU 2-2 and LU 10. 3) LU 2-2 and LU 10. 4) LU2-2 and LU 9. 5) LU Fringe 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. 6) LU 5 and LU 10 . 7WN&E) LU 2-4 . 7W&S) LU 5 . 7E) LU 2-3. 8) LU 10 = LU 11 and LU 11-6.10. 9) Ag 1, Ag 3, Ag 4, Ag 5, Ag 6 . 10) LU 2-3, LU 10, LU 11. 11) LU 5. 12) LU 5; All LU 12. Less than Significant. Population and Housing 2001 General Plan Update Build-out same as 1990. Population under 20,000 does not exceed resources or regional projections. No significant displacement of existing housing. Require studies for projects more than 20 dwellings. Require project EIR for more than 40 dwelling units or sensitive sites. Housing Element. Less than Significant. Item 9.a. - Page 169 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 4 PlaceWorks Environmental Impact Topic – Area Less Than Significant Area of Potential Significance – Project Mitigation Measures General Plan Policy Mitigation Impact After Mitigation Geophysical 2001 General Plan Update integrates Safety Element policies. Increased landslide and erosion exposure in certain hillside development areas. Seismic hazards mitigated by construction standards. 2) Rancho Grande–Noyes Road. 3) Rancho Grande–La Canada. 4) Royal Oak Estates-Require Project EIRs or geo study. 5) Northern SOI–Highway 227. 8) Fredericks/ALC and Williams-Require Specific Plans & EIRs. Safety Element. Less than Significant. Water Resources 20,000 population and development capacity of 2001 General Plan Update may exceed 3,490-acre feet available water resources unless per capita consumption limited to 160 gallons per day. Also dependent on other jurisdictions, Agricultural use, and County Residential and Suburban water use not exceeding current levels. Safe yield and allocations unresolved. Cumulative storm drainage degradation to water quality from certain projects. Arroyo Grande groundwater basin allocations and safe yield unresolved. Regional uses appear to exceed resources: potentially significant. Initiate regional groundwater study and resource allocations now to enable mitigation/resource management before permanent damage. Land use study areas with drainage concerns include: 2) Rancho Grande–Noyes Road. 3) Rancho Grande–La Canada. 4) Royal Oak Estates. 8) Fredericks/ALC and Williams. 11) East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use. 12) El Camino Real Mixed-Use. Conservation Element. Potentially significant: Requires Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval. Less than Significant. Air Quality 2001 General Plan Update similar to 1990 General Plan in build- out and land use: state ozone standard still exceeded. Update population projection for Arroyo Grande after 2010 exceeds 18,676 and requires Clean Air Plan amendment to reduce County fringe and South County growth. Mixed Use and compact community development would reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled vs. suburban sprawl. Arroyo Grande growth beyond 18,676 population in 2010 requires CAP amendment, but current plan allows more sprawl than proposed by 2001 Update. Transportation management strategies to encourage increased alternative circulation modes uncertain. Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Conservation Element, CAP Amendment to address regional issue. Potentially significant due to current non- attainment future CAP amendment, and uncertain Transportation Management Strategies on regional basis: requires Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval. Transportation and Circulation 2001 General Plan Update land use dependent on many regional circulation system improvements not yet resolved, including many street segments and intersection deficient for LOS ‘C.’ Current regional development pattern promotes County residential rural and suburban sprawl without assured mitigation. Correction of circulation deficiencies to LOS 'C' in question with all alternative due to regional land use pattern. Major projects with cumulative traffic impacts include: 5) Northern SOI unless mitigation fees established & density reduced. 7) Village Core–parking and East Branch congestion unresolved. 8) Fredericks/ALC and Williams–Specific Plan & EIR required. 11 & 12) East Grand Avenue and El Camino Real Mixed- Use parking and regional congestion unresolved. Land Use and Circulation Element. Potentially significant: Requires Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval. Item 9.a. - Page 170 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Page 5 Environmental Impact Topic – Area Less Than Significant Area of Potential Significance – Project Mitigation Measures General Plan Policy Mitigation Impact After Mitigation Biological Resources 2001 General Plan Update (GPU) redistributes additional planned development to least sensitive sites and maximizes mixed-use to conserve remaining resource areas. Riparian corridor and wetland restoration programs are weak; however, County development in Fringe Area has a much greater impact potential beyond City jurisdiction. Project EIRs required for sensitive sites in city. Propose reduction of impacts by alternatives. City should initiate riparian corridor acquisition, wetland restoration, and stormwater pollution prevention programs after GPU. Open Space and Conservation Element; Land Use Fringe Policies of Land Use Element. Less than significant. Hazards Fire safety concern in Northern SOI addressed by reduced density and/or need for new County CDF Station. Increased development in Mixed-Use Corridors and Village Core may require flood, fire and project mitigations. Density reduction essential in Land Use Study Area 5. for Northern Sphere of Influence: Projects may still need fire safety mitigation due to 15–minute response time. Major mixed-use projects in Village Core may need special fire and flood mitigation. Safety Element. Less than significant. Public Services Cumulative impacts of urban population growth and additional development may exceed current police and fire service capabilities without assured mitigation measures. Other Planned Developments will generally provide for project mitigation but cumulative growth anywhere in Lucia Mar School District will impact overcrowded schools. Large scale projects such as Land Use Study Area 8, Frederick/ALC and Williams require project Specific Plans and EIRs. Other cumulative developments warrant consideration of new impact fees, particularly in County Fringe Area. Planned Developments will provide project mitigation measures. Land Use Element Park and Recreation Element; State needs to increase school development priority not resolved in General Plan. Less than significant. Utility and Service Systems Cumulative impacts other than Northern SOI and southeast expansion. Land Use Study Areas 5 and 8 appear capable of development with relatively minor mitigation measures for water, sewer, drainage, and other utility infrastructure impacts. Potentially significant unless Northern SOI excluded & density reduced. Specific Plans and EIRs required for southeastern expansion to determine mitigation measures. Land Use Element C/OS 6. Less than significant. Cultural Resources Property specific surveys needed to mitigate historical and archeological impacts. Most significant concentration of historic resources is in Land Use Study Area 7, Village Core, and environs. Village Core mixed-use projects, in particular, need to provide site-specific resource survey and project design proposals to mitigate loss of historic or archeological resources. Conservation Element and Parks and Recreation Element. Less than significant. Recreation Cumulative developments contribute to increased regional need for park facilities and recreation programs offset in City by in-lieu fees or dedication of added land. Need implementation programs for recreational trails and increased regional funding responsibility. Potential for 20,000 City population implies need for at least 20 acres of additional parks, local and regional funding, and implementation programs needed to mitigate. Parks and Recreation Element. Less than significant. Item 9.a. - Page 171 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 6 PlaceWorks 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY CEQA requires the City to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with change to the environment. In this instance, most of the goals, policies, and programs from the previous Housing Element are continued through to the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. Table 1-2 includes the changes in programs between the existing 2014–2019 Housing Element and the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. Modifications to the existing policies are identified in the text following Table 1-1. Item 9.a. - Page 172 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Page 7 Table 1-2 Summary of Program Changes Between Existing Housing Element and 2020–2028 Housing Element Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete A. 1-1. The City shall establish a five-year schedule of actions to implement the goals and policies of the Housing Element. An implementation schedule of goals and policies are outlined in the Housing Element but many of the programs associated with these goals and policies have not yet been implemented due to staff constraints. The City will continue to implement programs based on the time frame under each program. This program is not needed in addition to the information in each program. Delete. A. 1-2. The City shall report annually on its progress in meeting its fair share housing targets, and provide the collected information to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), development community, and non-profit housing developers. HCD provides specific instructions and a template for the annual report. The City reports annually on progress toward Housing Element implementation and reaching the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) target. Delete. A. 1-3. The City shall amend the Development Code to revise the requirements for the Traffic Way Mixed Use District to remove the limitation to only live-work residential uses. A mix of residential use types shall be allowed as allowed in all of the mixed use zoning districts (except the Industrial Mixed Use District). The Development Code shall also be amended to allow residential projects at densities up to 20 units per acre in the Traffic Way Mixed Use District. The City has not amended the Development Code regarding the limitations on uses. The densities for the Traffic Way Mixed-Use District have also not been amended. This is due to staff constraints. This program will be continued. Continue as Program A.1- 2. A. 2-1. The City shall continue to encourage and publicize on the City’s website the secondary dwelling program to increase public awareness. The Development Code was updated in October 2017 regarding accessory dwelling units for compliance with state law (Ordinance No. 688). The City has continued to monitor impacts to accessory dwelling units from short-term rentals. Currently, the City provides information about accessory dwelling units on the City’s website, including development standards, procedures, and fees. This program will be continued and will include further amendments to the ordinance to address recent updates to state law. Amend to address updates in state law and add additional City efforts to promote ADUs and continue. A. 3-1. The City shall amend the Municipal Code to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing projects, including expedited permitting, providing financial assistance through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund, requiring lot consolidation, and providing greater flexibility in development standards. The Municipal Code has not yet been amended to include these incentives for affordable housing projects. However, impact fees have been reduced for affordable housing projects. In addition, the City has received funding through Senate Bill 2 to revise zoning to streamline review of affordable housing projects. This program has not successfully been implemented due to staff constraints and will be continued. Continue as Program A.3- 1. A. 3-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to include the definition of “Extremely Low-Income” as defined by Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. The definition of “extremely low-income” has not yet been included in the Development Code. Extremely low-income households earn 30 percent or less of the median household income. The City relies on the County’s affordable housing standards, which define extremely low- income households. This does not need inclusion in the City’s Development Code. This program will not be continued. Delete. A. 3-3. The City shall amend the Development Code to provide additional incentives specific for extremely low-income housing projects. Incentives may include flexible standards for on- and off-site improvements such as reduced parking requirements, reduced curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements; reduced or deferred water and/or sewer connection fees; permit streamlining procedures and development review; or financial incentives and assistance. The City has not yet amended the Development Code regarding additional incentives for extremely low-income housing projects. The City continues to monitor evolving state legislation associated with housing to ensure this has not been addressed or preempted. This program will be continued. Continue as Program A.3- 2. Item 9.a. - Page 173 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 8 PlaceWorks Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete A. 10-1. To facilitate affordable housing, the City shall comply with State Density Bonus Law. The City shall update Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with AB 2280. The City will continue to update Chapter 16.82 on an ongoing basis to comply with any future updates to State Density Bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) as well as evaluate proposed Development Code amendments to assess whether they pose any constraints to developer utilization of density bonuses. The City has not completed the Development Code amendment to comply with recent changes to State Density Bonus Law due to staff constraints. The City continues to comply with state law and offers density bonuses to eligible projects under state law. This program will be continued. Amend to reflect recent updates to state law and continue as Program A. 10- 1. A. 10-2. The City shall evaluate and amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit procedures in the Development Code (Section 16.16.060) to provide more predictable options for small lot infill projects in the City’s Residential land use designations. The Development Code has not been amended regarding the PUD permit procedures due to staff constraints. This program will be addressed as needed through other programs and will not be continued. Delete. A. 10-3. To encourage higher densities and reduce constraints to multi-family housing production, the City shall amend the Development Code to allow densities up to 20 du/ac in the Office Mixed Use (OMU) District for 100% multi-family housing projects with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural Review Committee. Mixed-use projects will continue to have a maximum allowed density of 20 du/ac. The City has not completed the Development Code amendment to allow for increased density in the OMU District due to staff constraints. This program will be continued. Amend and continue as Program A.10-2. A. 12-1. The City shall continue to maintain its Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping and planning database inventory of vacant and underutilized “opportunity sites.” The City maintains a geographic information system (GIS) database inventory of vacant and underutilized “opportunity sites.” This program has been successfully implemented and will be continued. Continue as Program A.12- 1. A. 14-1. The City shall amend the Development Code to include a definition of the term “Attainable housing.” The Development Code has not yet been amended to include the definition of “Attainable Housing.” This effort will be achieved through an “Affordable Housing” program. The City envisions assessing whether proposed projects include “Attainable Housing” as applications are submitted. This amendment to the Development Code is not needed to further affordable housing objectives. This program will not be continued. Delete. A. 15-1. The City shall establish a program to provide assistance to first-time home buyers. In the years following the 2008 recession, a number of the units originally restricted to families earning a moderate income were sold at market rate because the formula used to determine sales price was such that market rate prices were lower than income-restricted prices. By default, the program acted like a first-time home buyer’s program. However, a formal first- time home buyer program has not been established. This program will be continued. Continue as Program A.14- 1. B. 1-1. The City shall continue tracking all residential projects that include affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is maintained for at least 45 years for owner- occupied units and 55 years for rental units, and that any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 45 or 55-year restriction shall be “rolled over” for another 45 or 55 years to protect “at-risk” units. The City tracks all affordable projects through a database, inputting any updates regarding ownership or affordability when they occur. This program will be continued. Combine with Programs E.4-1, I.1-1, and I-2.1; update for consistency with state law; and continue as Program H.1-1. Item 9.a. - Page 174 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Page 9 Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete B. 2-1. The City may contract with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), local non-profit organizations, or a regional monitoring agency for the monitoring of affordable units to ensure compliance with terms of the development agreement. The City has an agreement with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) for affordable housing eligibility verification and compliance. The City is also a member of the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (SLOCHTF), which provides ongoing technical assistance. This program will be continued. Continue as Program B.2- 1. B. 6-1. The City shall monitor the loss of permanent workforce housing from vacation rentals and consider modifying the Development Code to adjust for this loss. The Development Code prohibits homestays and vacation rentals from being located within 300 feet of an existing homestay or vacation rental on the same street. To date, the City has approved 33 homestays and 47 vacation rental applications. The City has an increased interest in monitoring rental loss due to state housing legislation. The City will continue to monitor the number of permits issued for homestays and vacation rentals to determine impacts to housing. Amend to remove term workforce and continue as Program B.5-1. C. 1-1. The City shall continue to allocate financial resources to augment extremely low, very low, and low-income housing development based on the financial projection of the In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund. The Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust Fund will continue to devote funds to affordable housing projects for people of extremely low, very low, and low income. For instance, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund was used to offset impact fees for a Habitat for Humanity project approved in 2018. That project will construct eight single-family residences that will be deed restricted for very-low-income households and is expected to begin construction in 2020. This program will be continued. Continue as Program C.1- 1. C. 4-1. The City shall continue to meet with local non-profit and private developers semi- annually, or more frequently if opportunities arise, to promote the extremely low, very low, and low-income housing programs outlined in the Housing Element. The City shall direct private housing developers to funding sources (such as federal and State housing grant fund programs and local housing trust funds) to promote affordable housing as outlined in the policies of Goal C. The City continues to promote the development of affordable housing opportunities for people of extremely low, very low, and low income, including through its relationships with HASLO and SLOCHTF. This program will be continued. Amend and continue as Program C.4-1. C. 4-2. The City shall continue to participate in financial incentive programs established by the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (SLOCHTF), such as a revolving loan program. The City continues to receive local housing funding through the SLOCHTF. This program will be continued. Continue as Program C.4- 2. D. 1-1. The City shall encourage specific plans for land within its Sphere of Influence that include increased residential capacity for multiple-family development. No specific plans with multiple-family development have been developed since adoption of the previous housing element. Multiple-family developments will continue to be encouraged through specific plans. This program will continue to be implemented. Continue as Program D.1- 1. E. 4-1. When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property owners of deed restricted affordable units who need to sell within 45 years of initial sale. When the seller is unable to sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period, equity sharing provisions are established (as per the affordable housing agreement for the property) whereby the difference between the affordable and market value is paid to the City to eliminate any incentive to sell the converted unit at market rate. Funds generated would then be used to develop additional affordable housing within the City. The City will continue to support the affordable housing agreement of properties, working with property owners, as needed, who need to sell deed-restricted affordable units. This program will be continued. Combine with Programs B.1-1, I.1-1, and I-2.1; update for consistency with state law; and continue as Program H.1-1. Item 9.a. - Page 175 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 10 PlaceWorks Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete F. 1-1. The City shall evaluate and amend the inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80) based on experience using the requirements in producing affordable units. Potential changes to the requirements include: (1) consider contracting with a housing management organization to manage deed-restricted affordable units in the City; (2) consider adding incentives to encourage construction of rental units; and (3) investigate extending the income categories served by the inclusionary requirements to extremely low income households. The City will engage the development community during the evaluation process. The City has not amended the Development Code regarding the inclusionary affordable housing requirements. This program will be continued. Combine with Program F.1.3 and continue as Program E.1-1. F. 1-2. The City shall amend the inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80) to eliminate inclusion of moderate-income units in the requirements. The City has not amended the Development Code eliminating the inclusion of moderate- income units in the inclusionary affordable housing requirements. The City does this in practice through the subdivision process. Fees are collected in lieu of providing deed- restricted moderate-income units. This program is no longer needed and will not be continued. Delete. F. 1-3. The City shall amend the in-lieu fee as called for in the inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the Development Code (Chapter 16.80). The City has not amended the Development Code due to staff constraints but has developed a preliminary methodology to amend this in-lieu fee. This program will be continued. Combine with Program F.1-1 and continue as Program E.1-1. G. 1-1. The City shall work with non-profit organizations to maintain a mailing list of persons interested in development projects containing affordable housing. Agendas for all City meetings related to these projects shall be mailed to persons on the mailing list. The City shall also continue to post the agendas on the City’s website. The City publishes all meeting materials on its website and encourages everyone to sign up for notification when new agendas are published. The City utilizes its contacts at HASLO and SLOCHTF to help inform interested individuals. This program will be continued. Continue as Program F.1- 1. G. 1-2. The City shall encourage construction and/or rehabilitation of housing units for low, very-low, and extremely low income households by developing and implementing incentive-based programs such as fee reductions, fee waivers, flexible development standards, updating the City’s second unit ordinance to reduce barriers to second units development in residential zones, and similar programs. The City has updated its accessory dwelling unit ordinance and will adopt new amendments consistent with changes in state law. The City has not developed incentive-based programs due to staff constraints. This program overlaps with several other programs and is not needed in the updated housing element. This program will not be continued. Delete. G. 1-3. The City shall amend the Development Code to allow development of up to 15 multiple-family attached units in the MF and MFA zoning districts with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural Review Committee. Development of over 15 multiple-family attached units in the MF and MFA zoning districts shall require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City has not amended the Development Code. This program will be continued. Amend and continue as Program F.1-2. H. 1-1. The City shall continue to coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority to maintain and expand Section 8 rental housing assistance to qualified households. The City coordinates with HASLO regarding Section 8 housing assistance when needed. This program will continue to be implemented. Continue as Program G.1- 1. Item 9.a. - Page 176 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Page 11 Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete H. 1-2. The City shall develop a program to offer housing developers an alternative to meet affordable housing requirements by contributing some “sweat equity” on projects where existing housing units will be rehabilitated or conserved as affordable as per the City’s Affordable Housing Program. Opportunities are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This program will be continued. Continue as Program G.1- 2. H. 2-1. The City shall continue to consider abatement of unsafe or unsanitary structures, including buildings or rooms inappropriately used for housing, contrary to adopted health and safety codes. Where feasible, the City will encourage rehabilitation and allow reasonable notice and time to correct deficiencies. Where necessary and feasible, extremely low, very low and low-income residents displaced by abatement action shall be eligible for relocation assistance, subject to Council approval. This is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This program will be continued. Continue as Program G.2- 1. I. 1-1. Written notice shall be required prior to the conversion of any units for low-income households to market rate units in any of the following circumstances: ▪ The units were constructed with the aid of government funding ▪ The units were required by an inclusionary zoning ordinance ▪ The project was granted a density bonus ▪ The project received other incentives The property owner should work with the City and affordable housing developers, such as HASLO, to identify qualified buyers and/or funding prior to conversion. In cases where conversions occur, notice shall at a minimum be given to the following: ▪ The City of Arroyo Grande ▪ State Department of Housing and Community Development ▪ San Luis Obispo Housing Authority ▪ Residents of at-risk units The City maintains a database of restricted units that is used to determine when these situations will arise. This program will be continued. Combine this program with Programs B.1-1, E-4.1, and I-2.1; amend to comply with state law; and continue as Program H.1-1. I. 2-1. The City shall annually monitor the status of affordable housing developments. If any property owners indicate plans to convert affordable units to market rate pricing, or if the City identifies market conditions indicating potential for “at risk” unit conversion, the City will contact qualified non-profit organizations or other agencies and explore opportunities to assist and facilitate the transfer ownership of “at risk” units. The City monitors the development of affordable housing, classifying the development of new units based on income brackets of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. The City will continue to ensure the availability of affordable housing units for people of very low and low income. This program will be continued. Combine this program with Programs B.1-1, I.1-1, and E.4-1; amend to comply with state law; and continue as Program H.1- 1. J. 1-1. The City shall continue to promote housing opportunities for seniors and other special needs groups by identifying sites suitable for senior and transitional housing and considering other incentives to promote senior and transitional housing. Single- room occupancy units (SROs) shall be added to the use tables in the Development Code allowed in all Mixed-Use zones with a conditional use permit. SROs shall be allowed in the MFVH zone district with a minor use permit. Within the planning period, a senior living project consisting of 69 beds was approved and staff processed a pre-application for another senior living complex consisting of 120 beds. Staff provided feedback on constraints of the site. No further implementation has occurred. The program will be continued. Continue as Program I.1-1. Item 9.a. - Page 177 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 12 PlaceWorks Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete J. 5-1. To encourage farmworker housing, the City will amend the zoning ordinance to identify farmworker housing as a residential use in the use tables. The City Zoning Ordinance will be amended to ensure that permit processing procedures for farmworker housing do not conflict with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, which states that farmworker housing for six or fewer employees should be “deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation,” and 17021.6 which states that for "employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household...no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone.” The City has not amended the Development Code due to staff constraints. This program will be continued. Continue as Program I.5-1. K. 1-1. The City shall continue to participate in the South San Luis Obispo County working group cooperating with other cities, the county and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at providing homeless shelters and related services. The City continues to work with the County and other relevant agencies in providing homeless shelters and related services. The City provides grant funding to the 5 Cities Homeless Coalition through its allocation of Community Development Block Grant federal funds and through the City’s Jim Guthrie Community Service Grant Program for homeless services. This program will be continued. Continue as Program J.1- 1. K. 2-1. The City shall amend the Development Code to allow emergency shelters without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permits in appropriate locations in compliance with SB 2, the “Fair Share Zoning” law. The Development Code amendment shall include a definition for “emergency shelter.” Emergency shelters are currently not allowed in commercial mixed-use districts, and are allowed through the Conditional Use Permit process in the Condominium/ Townhouse (MF), Apartments (MFA) and Multifamily Very High Density (MFVH) residential districts. The Development Code shall be updated to require administrative approval only for emergency shelters in the Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU) and Highway Mixed-Use (HMU) districts. These commercial districts have sufficient capacity to house emergency shelters with approximately 18 acres of vacant or underutilized land available. The IMU district has several large parcels totaling almost 13.5 acres with ten (10) acres that are currently used as storage and/or construction yards with small or no permanent structures. The HMU district has less potential, although there are about four acres with a couple of large vacant parcels totaling 1.64 acres. About 6.36 of the 18 acres have some type of permanent structure on the individual parcels, but could be redeveloped to accommodate transitional housing. Transitional and supportive housing shall be defined as residential uses subject to the same standards that apply to other housing. The Development Code can include locational and operational criteria for emergency shelters such as: ▪ Proximity of public transit, supportive services, and commercial services; ▪ Hours of operation; Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April 2016 to amend the Development Code regarding Emergency Shelters and Supportive and Transitional Housing. This program has been implemented. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 178 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Page 13 Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete ▪ External lighting and noise; ▪ Provision of security measures for the proper operation and management of a proposed facility; ▪ Measures to avoid queues of individuals outside proposed facility; and ▪ Compliance with county and State health and safety requirements for food, medical, and other supportive services provided onsite. Such criteria can act to encourage and facilitate emergency shelters and transitional housing through clear and unambiguous guidelines for the application review process, the basis for approval, and the terms and conditions of approval. The City will solicit input from local service providers and the South San Luis Obispo County working group in the preparation and adoption of the amendment to the Development Code to ensure that development standards and permit processing will not impede the approval K. 2-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to define transitional and supportive housing as residential uses per Section 65582 of the Government Code subject to the same standards that apply to other housing in the same zone. Ordinance No. 677 was adopted in April 2016 to amend the Development Code regarding Emergency Shelters and Supportive and Transitional Housing. This program has been implemented. Delete. K. 2-3. The City may consider implementing an overnight parking program, or a similar program, for the homeless in appropriate zoning districts. An overnight parking program has not yet been established. This program will be continued. Amend and continue as Program J.2-1. L. 1-1. The City shall explore models to encourage the creation of housing for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. Such models could include coordinating with the Tri-County Regional Center and other local agencies in encouraging affordable housing projects to dedicate a percent of housing for disabled individuals; assisting in housing development; providing housing services that educate, advocate, inform, and assist people to locate and maintain housing; and models to assist in the maintenance and repair of housing for persons with developmental disabilities. The City has not coordinated with the Tri-Counties Regional Center. However, the City will continue to explore models to encourage development of housing for persons with disabilities. This program will continue to be implemented. Continue as Program K.1- 1. L. 2-1. The City shall create a policy or amend the Development Code to provide persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing an opportunity to request reasonable accommodation in the application of City building and zoning laws. The City has not amended the Development Code to provide an opportunity to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities due to staff constraints. This program will be continued. Continue as Program K.2- 1. L. 2-2. The City will have brochures on universal design available at the Community Development Department front counter. The City will also consider updating the building code to encourage use of universal design in home design. Universal design is based on the precept that throughout life, all people experience changes in their abilities. The goal of universal design is to provide environments that are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for The City has not yet made progress promoting the universal design concept but discusses the topic with residential developers when the opportunity presents itself. Due to limitations on staff resources, this program will not be continued. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 179 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 14 PlaceWorks Program Progress Continue/Modify/Delete specialization in design and construction and/or facilitate change in occupancy over time. M. 1-1. The City shall continue working to implement a water and electrical retrofit program for existing housing units. A plumbing retrofit program was established in 2004, and water conservation rebate programs were established in 2009. The City will continue to work with PG&E and other agencies to establish an electrical retrofit program. The City has continued to promote Water Conservation Incentive programs, including the Plumbing Retrofit Program, as well as rebate and education programs. The City has also been involved in the San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch, a joint project between San Luis Obispo County, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company. In 2013, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan and partnered with San Luis Obispo County jurisdictions to receive a California Strategic Growth Council grant to develop an implementation and monitoring program. The program provides tools and best practices for implementing all Climate Action Plan (CAP) programs, such as the energy audit and retrofit program. This program will be updated to reflect current program information and continued. Amend and continue as Program L.1-1. M. 1-2. Consistent with Measure E-4 of the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City shall establish a program to allow residential projects to receive minor exceptions if they meet 25% of items on the Tier 1 list of the California Green Building Code (Title 24) or 15% of items on the Tier 2 list of that code. The City has yet to establish a program regarding minor exceptions for residential projects that meet a minimum number of items from the California Green Building Code. This program will be continued. Continue as Program L.1- 2. N. 1-1. The City will continue to promote the enforcement of policies of the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission, and shall resolve housing discrimination complaints through assistance from HUD, and/or local, regional private fair housing organizations. The City will prepare a brochure that promotes equal housing opportunities and addresses discrimination. The brochure will be available at the Community Development department and a link to download the brochure will be placed on the City’s website. In addition the City shall disseminate information in one or more of the following ways to ensure the public is aware of Fair Housing Law: ▪ Distribute materials to property owners and apartment managers twice a year. ▪ Make public service announcements through multiple media outlets including newspaper, radio, television, and social media to run on a regular basis. ▪ Conduct public presentations. The City has not yet prepared a brochure to promote equal housing opportunities and address discrimination or disseminated information about the Fair Housing Law to the public. This program will be continued. Continue as Program M.1- 1. O. 1-1. Prior to any public hearing where the City is considering amending or updating its Housing Element or housing policies, the City will notify all local housing organizations, as well as social service agencies, and post notices at significant locations. The City will continue to notify the necessary organizations, agencies, and other parties when amending or updating the Housing Element or housing policies. This program will be continued. Continue as Program N.1- 1. P. 1-1. Following amendment of the General Plan Conservation/Open Space and Safety Elements to comply with AB 162 related to floodplain mapping, the City will amend the Housing Element if needed for consistency. The City has not yet amended the General Plan Conservation and Safety Elements to comply with Assembly Bill 162 due to staff constraints. Following any amendments, the Housing Element will be modified, as necessary. This program will be implemented when those elements are updated but will not be continued as a Housing Element program. Delete. Item 9.a. - Page 180 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Page 15 As shown in Table 1-2, the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element consolidates many programs from the previous Housing Element to aid in implementation and to eliminate redundancy. The following 12 amended programs are included in the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element (Note: the following programs are modified using italic underline or strikeout to indicate change to the amended programs): ▪ A.2-1. The City shall continue to encourage and publicize on the City’s website the accessory secondary dwelling program to increase public awareness., including a flowchart to aid in the application process. The City will also amend the accessory dwelling unit regulations in the Development Code for consistency with updates to state law. In addition, as part of the ordinance update, the City will evaluate ADU requirements related to off-street parking, lot coverage and open space, setbacks, maximum size and height and passageways, entrances and orientation; and adjust them as feasible to be more permissive than what is required by state law. The City will evaluate and adopt pre-approved accessory dwelling unit plans to streamline the approval process and lower development costs for applicants. Additional outreach regarding ADUs and the pre-approved plans will be conducted, including the steps detailed in the REAP (AB 101) grant work program. This outreach will include flyers, promotional materials and other outreach to further spread the word about ADUs and ADU-related resources in Arroyo Grande. The City will monitor ADU permitting throughout the planning period to track whether permits are keeping up with the ADUs anticipated in the housing element, including affordability. The City will monitor the number and affordability of ADUs every two years and include additional actions as appropriate including conducting additional outreach if ADU permits are not keeping up with numbers anticipated in the housing element after 2 years and every 2 years thereafter. The outreach will include regular announcements (at least once a month) about options to build ADUs and ADU resources at Planning Commission and City Council meetings and prominent placement of ADU information and the process to permit them on the City’s website. If ADUs are not occurring consistent with assumptions in the element, the City will amend and submit the housing element to HCD to identify adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. ▪ A.10-1. To facilitate affordable housing, the City shall comply with State Density Bonus Law. The City shall update Development Code Chapter 16.82 to comply with AB 2280 current state density bonus law. The City will continue to update Chapter 16.82 on an ongoing basis to comply with any future updates to State Density Bonus law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.) as well as evaluate proposed Development Code amendments to assess whether they pose any constraints to developer utilization of density bonuses. ▪ A.10-3. To encourage higher densities and reduce constraints to multifamily housing production, the City shall amend the Development Code to allow densities up to 20 du/ac in the OMU District and up to 25 du/ac in the FOMU and GMU districts for 100% multifamily housing projects with a Minor-Use Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural Review Committee. Mixed-use projects will continue to have a maximum allowed density of 20 du/ac in OMU and 25 du/ac in FOMU and GMU. ▪ B.5-1. The City shall monitor the loss of permanent workforce housing from vacation rentals and consider modifying the Development Code to adjust for this loss. Item 9.a. - Page 181 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 16 PlaceWorks ▪ C.4-1. The City shall continue to meet with local non-profit and private developers semi-annually or more frequently if opportunities arise, to promote the extremely low, very low, and low-income housing programs and programs for special needs residents (including those who are homeless) outlined in the Housing Element. The City shall direct private housing developers to funding sources (such as federal and state housing grant fund programs and local housing trust funds) to promote affordable housing, as outlined in the policies of Goal C. ▪ F.1-2. The City shall amend the Development Code to allow development of up to 15 multiple-family attached units in the MF and MFA zoning districts with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) subject to design review through the Architectural Review Committee. Development of over 15 multiple-family attached units in the MF and MFA zoning districts shall require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City shall address and remove, replace or modify the use permit requirements for multifamily devel opment in multifamily zones to promote certainty in the approval process, increase objectivity and address the CUP and MUP requirements as a constraint. Examples of action include: o Replace the use permit requirements with a site plan review, including appr oval guidance on development and design standards o Raise unit threshold allowed without an MUP or CUP to a greater threshold than currently allowed in consultation with HCD o Revise findings for use permits to be more objective, including limiting compatibility criteria to health and safety issues o Reduce the level of review for this type of project to more ministerial processes ▪ J.2-1 The City may shall consider implementing an overnight parking program, or a similar program, for the homeless in appropriate zoning districts. ▪ L.1-1. The City shall continue working to implement a water conservation incentive programs, including the Plumbing Retrofit Program, and energy conservation programs, such as those described by San Luis Obispo County Energy Watch and others, as applicable. and electrical retrofit program for existing housing units. A plumbing retrofit program was established in 2004, and water conservation rebate programs were established in 2009. The City will continue to work with PG&E and other agencies to establish an electrical retrofit program. Programs B.1-1, E.4-1, I.1-1, and I.2-1 were combined and amended as one program - H.1-1: ▪ H. 1-1. The City will monitor the list of all dwellings in Arroyo Grande that are subsidized by government funding or low-income housing developed through local regulations or incentives. The list will include, at least, the number of units, the type of government program, and the date on which the units are at risk to convert to market-rate dwellings. No units have been identified as at risk of converting to market rate within 10 years of the beginning of the sixth-round Housing Element planning period. The City will work to reduce the potential conversion of any units to market rate through the following actions: Item 9.a. - Page 182 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Pa ge 17 o Monitor the status of affordable projects, rental projects, and mobile homes in Arroyo Grande. Should the property owners indicate the desire to convert properties, consider providing technical and financial assistance, when possible, to ensure long-term affordability. o If conversion of units is likely, work with local service providers as appropriate to seek funding to subsidize the at-risk units in a way that mirrors the HUD Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program. Funding sources may include state or local funding sources. Pursuant to state law, owners of deed-restricted affordable projects are required to provide notice of restrictions that are expiring after January 1, 2021, to all prospective tenants, existing tenants, and the City within three years of the scheduled expiration of rental restrictions. In addition, the City or owner will provide notice to HUD and the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority. Owners shall also refer tenants of at-risk units to educational resources regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures and information regarding Section 8 rent subsidies and any other affordable housing opportunities in the City. In addition, notice shall be required prior to conversion of any units to market rate for any additional deed-restricted lower-income units that were constructed with the aid of government funding, that were required by inclusionary zoning requirements, that were part of a project granted a density bonus, or that were part of a project that received other incentives. If a development is offered for sale, HCD must certify persons or entities that are eligible to purchase the development and to receive notice of the pending sale. Placement on the eligibility list will be based on experience with affordable housing. When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property owners of deed-restricted affordable units who need to sell within 45 years of initial sale. When the seller is unable to sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period, equity-sharing provisions are established (pursuant to the affordable housing agreement for the property), whereby the difference between the affordable and market value is paid to the City to eliminate any incentive to sell the converted unit at market rate. Funds generated would then be used to develop additional affordable housing within the City. The City shall continue tracking all residential projects that include affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is maintained for at least 45 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental units, and that any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 45- or 55-year restriction shall be “rolled over” for another 45 or 55 years to protect “at-risk” units. The following 12 programs are new to the City and are included in the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element: ▪ A.1-1. To comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 1397, the Development Code shall be amended to allow Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 077-011-010, 077-204-028, 077-211-022, and 077-221-031 in the land inventory in this sixth-round Housing Element to be developed for residential use by-right, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2(c). This zoning change is necessary because parcel 077-011-010 which is vacant was included in the City’s fourth- and fifth-round Housing Elements and has not yet developed for housing and the other three parcels which are non-vacant were Item 9.a. - Page 183 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 18 PlaceWorks included in the City’s fifth round Housing Element. This by-right (without discretionary review) requirement will only apply to housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. The application of the requirement should not be used to further constrain the development of housing. As such, housing developments that do not contain the requisite 20 percent would still be allowed to be developed according to the underlying (base) zoning. These parcels are currently zoned Office Mixed-Use (OMU) and Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FOMU) which require a Use Permit for multifamily housing development. The City shall modify the Development Code to reflect the by-right provisions described in this program within three years of the beginning of the sixth-cycle Housing Element planning period, which is December 31, 2023. ▪ A.1-3. To mitigate the loss of affordable housing units, new housing developments shall be required to replace affordable housing units lost due to new development. In accordance with 65583.2 subdivision (g), the City also will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (c)(3) on sites identified in the sites inventory when any new development (residential, mixed-use or non-residential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower-income households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement applies to: o Non-vacant sites o Vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished ▪ A.2-2. To further encourage ADU creation, the City shall establish an amnesty program in compliance with Senate Bill 13 to facilitate the process of bringing unpermitted ADUs into compliance with local regulations including the building code by owners of this type of unit. Senate Bill 13 requires under certain circumstances specified by state law, that enforcement of violations related to unpermitted ADUs be delayed for 5 years if correcting the violations are not necessary to protect health and safety. The City program would consider reductions in fees associated with necessary upgrades to bring the unit up to code along with providing information and staff assistance with the steps in the process to bring the unit up to code. ▪ A.3-3. The City shall consider a program to waive, reduce or defer impact fees for ADUs and projects with deed-restricted affordable units. ▪ D.1-2. The City shall review the parking standards for affordable and senior housing projects and reduce them to the greatest extent possible. ▪ F.1-3. Establish a written policy or procedure and other guidance as appropriate to specify the SB 35 (2017) streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects, as set forth under California Government Code, Section 65913.4. Item 9.a. - Page 184 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Pa ge 19 ▪ F.1-4. Conduct a comprehensive review of the Development Code and the General Plan and replace any subjective standards that may apply to housing projects with objective design standards in compliance with applicable State law. This will include revising the findings for design review to be objective. ▪ F.1-5. The City will establish a written process to comply with Senate Bill 1087 and identify ways to move forward with improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure as needed in order to maintain sufficient infrastructure and capacity to serve the City’s housing need. This will include working on planning, funding and construction of infrastructure. ▪ I.5-2. Revise the definition of family in the Development Code to comply with state law. ▪ J.2-2. Per AB 2162, the City will review its Development Code to ensure compliance with AB 2162 related to allowing supportive housing. The Development Code will be reviewed to assess whether supportive housing is allowed without discretionary review in all zoning districts that allow multifamily housing or mixed-use development, including nonresidential zoning districts, as applicable. If it is determined that the allowed uses in the Development Code are not in compliance with AB 2162, the City will revise the allowed uses along with corresponding development standards, as detailed in AB 2162. ▪ J.2-3. As set forth in AB 101 (2019), the City will review its Development Code and make revisions, if necessary, to allow low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless pursuant to Government Code Sections 65660–65668. ▪ M.1-2. Arroyo Grande will develop a plan to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). The AFFH Plan shall take actions to address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity for all persons, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8, commencing with Section 12900, of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. Specific actions will include the following: o Facilitate public education and outreach by creating informational flyers on fair housing that will be made available at public counters, libraries, and on the City’s website. City Council meetings will include a fair housing presentation at least once per year. o Actively recruit residents from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty (if applicable) to serve or participate on boards, committees, and other local government bodies. o Ensure environmental hazards are not disproportionately concentrated in low-income communities and low-income communities of color. o Develop a proactive code enforcement program that holds property owners accountable and proactively plans for resident relocation, when necessary. Item 9.a. - Page 185 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 20 PlaceWorks 1.4 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1)–(3) calling for the preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations): When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would fulfill none of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) as these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the 2001 General Plan EIR. Accordingly, this checklist provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project. Item 9.a. - Page 186 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2 0 2 0 –2 0 2 8 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR December 2020 Pa ge 21 As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR): (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. A copy of this addendum and all supporting documentation may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department, 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California 93420. Additionally, a copy of this addendum is available on the City website: https://www.arroyogrande.org/142/Planning-Division Item 9.a. - Page 187 December 2020 Page 22 2. CEQA Analysis 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The General Plan EIR acknowledges that new development permitted and regulated by the General Plan will have some significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. These significant and unavoidable impacts include impacts to Water Resources, Air Quality, and Transportation and Circulation. The General Plan Update proposes population growth and development that will approach or exceed current water resources, air quality standards, circulation system capacities, and public service and facility capabilities. The General Plan EIR evaluates the proposed revisions to the goals, policies, and programs of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan, which was adopted in 2001. The General Plan consists of policies concerning land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, agriculture, economic development, and parks and recreation. General Plan revisions have very few, if any, specific environmental impacts. The General Plan is largely designed to be self-mitigating by incorporating policies and implementation measures that address and mitigate related environmental impacts, such as zoning codes and design standards. As identified in Table 1-1, mitigation is proposed for the following environmental impact topics: Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Geophysical, Water, Biological Resources, Hazards, Public Services, Utility and Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Recreation. Proposed mitigation for each environmental impact topic reduces the areas of potential significance to less than significant. Table 1-2 shows that most of the existing Housing Element programs will remain unchanged with the proposed project. The 12 new programs are either informative, resulting in no physical change to the environment, or reflect state mandates. The proposed Housing Element does not amend the development pattern for the City, as shown in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the zoning map for the City. Physical change to the environment would occur from implementation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, not the proposed Housing Element. As the proposed Housing Element does not affect the land use pattern of the city, or result in any physical change to the environment, there are no new environmental impacts, or an increase in the severity of any previously evaluated environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The proposed Housing Element establishes targets for the income accessibility of future housing, however the ability to construct the housing is based on the Land Use Element. As the City is able to meet its RHNA without changing any land use designation, the Land Use Element remains unchanged from the document evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR relied on policies from various elements of the General Plan to address future development. The proposed project does not change these policies. Thus, the finding of the General Plan EIR is that there are no impacts that will, as a result of adopting the General Plan revisions, require impact-specific mitigation measures. Further, based on review of the General Plan EIR, and consideration that the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element does not add new programs that would affect development in the city, the project would result in less than significant impacts. Item 9.a. - Page 188 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 2. CEQA Analysis December 2020 Page 23 New program A.1-1 would allow four parcels in this sixth-round Housing Element to be developed for residential use by-right when a project with at least 20 percent affordable housing units is proposed. All future development in the city would be required to comply with local regulations, including the General Plan and Development Code. All projects would be subject to development procedures of the City, such as the Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and subdivision standards. These local regulations guide future development and would address any physical impact resulting from development. Moreover, the City’s Development Code contains a list of permitted uses for each respective zoning district. The permitted uses anticipate physical impacts associated with development and would therefore result in no new impact as part of development. These regulations are applied as part of the building permit process and are independent of CEQA. Therefore, this process would be unaffected by the change to by-right zoning. Furthermore, significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR are mitigated through the incorporation of policies and implementation measures, such as zoning codes and design standards. Future by-right development would still be subject to federal, state, and local policies regarding land use, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, wetland conservation, and construction air quality permitting. These policies apply to all projects, regardless of whether a project is a discretionary action. As the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element does not change any land use designation or zone district, the impacts of the proposed project will be no more substantial than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No new mitigation measures are necessary. 1.6 FINDING The discussion in this addendum confirms that the proposed project has been evaluated for significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. The discussion is meaningfully different than a determination that a project is “exempt” from CEQA review, as the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element update is not exempt. Rather, the determination here is that the 2001 General Plan EIR evaluated all the physical impacts likely to result from future development. As the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element does not change any land use designation or approve any development, the General Plan EIR provides a sufficient and adequate analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. The proposed project consists entirely of land uses permitted by project sites’ existing General Plan land use designation and zoning and represents no change from the impacts that were assumed and analyzed by the General Plan EIR. As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 allowing the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum. Accordingly, this EIR addendum has been prepared. The addendum demonstrates that the project will not create any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of those significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Item 9.a. - Page 189 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 2. CEQA Analysis Page 24 PlaceWorks The following identifies the standards set forth in Section 15162 as they relate to the project. The text that follows the provisions of the law relates to the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As shown in Table 1-2, the program changes included in the proposed Housing Element are limited to complying with state law, combining programs with similar intent to aid in implementation, or elimination of programs where the City has already completed the identified task. The proposed project does not result in the rezoning of land or approval of any development project. All development in the city must be consistent with the General Plan, and if a discretionary action, must complete a project-specific CEQA analysis. The programs identified in Table 1-2 that propose changes to the Development Code represent modification of existing policy to either streamline development, make the code consistent with state law, or implement new programs. As all of the sites that these modified programs would affect are currently designated for development in the General Plan, there would be no change in the physical impact associated with future development. Furthermore, mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR would apply to future development and reduce impacts to less than significant. Program F.1-2. involves additional updates to allow 20 multiple-family attached units in the MFA zoning district. Projects proposing 15 dwelling units per acre or less will require a minor use permit, and projects proposing more than 15 dwelling units per acre and up to 20 dwelling units per acre will require a conditional use permit. Projects of any density would be subject to design review. Program A.2-1 involves informational changes that address updates in state law and adds additional City efforts to promote ADUs consistent with state requirements and existing zoning designations. Program A.10-1 involves informational changes that address compliance with the current state density law. Program A.10-3 involves information changes that specify allowed densities of 25 dwelling units per acre in the FOMU and GMU districts for 100 percent multifamily housing projects as well as 25 dwelling units per acre in the FOMU and GMU districts for mixed-use projects. Program B. 5-1 involves a modification that removes the term workforce. Program C. 4-1 involves informational changes that includes a reference to promote programs for special needs residents. Program J.2-1 involves informational changes that update language to be legally-binding in order to establish an overnight parking program. Program L. 1-1 involves informational changes and identifies new water conservation incentives, energy, and retrofit programs for the City to implement. Programs B. 1-1, E. 4-1, I. 1-1, and I. 2-1 were combined and amended as one program to comply with state law and aid in their implementation as they were similar in intent. As such, these modifications to the existing programs would not result in any physical impacts on the environment. The proposed Item 9.a. - Page 190 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 2. CEQA Analysis December 2020 Page 25 Housing Element consolidates many programs from the existing Housing Element to aid in implementation and to eliminate redundancy. The 12 new programs represent changes that allow the City to amend the Development Code to allow four parcels in this sixth-round Housing Element to be developed for residential use by-right when a project with at least 20 percent affordable housing units is proposed; encourage the legalization of ADUs by establishing an amnesty program; aim to waive, reduce, or defer impact fees for ADUs and projects with deed-restricted affordable units and reduce parking standards for affordable and senior housing projects; establish written policies or procedures that specify the streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects in Government Code Section 65913.4 (SB 35); revise the Development Code to change subjective standards that apply to housing projects to objective standards; establish a written process to comply with Government Code Section 65589.7 (SB 1087) and identify ways to move forward with improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure; revise the definition of family in the Development Code to comply with state law; ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65583 (AB 2162) related to allowing supportive housing; ensure compliance with multiple state laws regarding replacing affordable housing units when redevelopment occurs on their parcel; allow for low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless; and enable the City to develop a fair housing plan that takes actions to address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to housing opportunities. New development resulting from these programs would occur on land designated for housing under the current General Plan. Furthermore, all future development in the city would be required to comply with local regulations, including the General Plan and Development Code. Consequently, all projects would be subject to development procedures of the City, such as the Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and subdivision standards. These local regulations guide future development and would address any physical impact resulting from development. Moreover, the City’s Development Code contains a list of permitted uses for each respective zoning district. The permitted uses anticipate physical impacts associated with development and would therefore result in no new impact as part of development. As shown in Table 1- 1,the mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR would continue to apply to all development. All future residential development on the four parcels identified for residential use by right as described above would be required to be evaluated in accordance with the development code, as outlined in Chapter 16 of the City’s municipal code. Future by-right development would still be subject to federal, state, and local policies regarding land use, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, wetland conservation, and construction air quality permitting. Moreover, the City maintains a thorough building permit review process prior to the issuance of any building permit. The building permit review process is independent of the CEQA process and would be unaffected by the change to by-right zoning. Additionally, prior to issuance of any building permit, a project applicant is required to pay development impact fees (Chapter 3.36 of the municipal code), which would address potential impacts to public services. Item 9.a. - Page 191 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 2. CEQA Analysis Page 26 PlaceWorks The modifications to housing policies do not amend the adopted development pattern for the City, as shown in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Because the changes to the Housing Element would not affect the land use pattern of the city or result in any physical changes to the environment, there are no new environmental impacts or increases in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts. 2. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. As shown in Table 1-2, the proposed Housing Element programs are similar to the existing policies of the General Plan. The proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element includes 12 amended programs and 12 new programs. As stated above, these amended and new programs would not result in new significant environmental impacts. These programs are either informative, resulting in no physical change to the environment, or reflect state mandates. Physical change to the environment would occur from implementation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, not the proposed Housing Element. As the City is able to meet its RHNA without changing any land use designation, the Land Use Element remains unchanged from the document evaluated in the General Plan EIR. All future development would be subject to project-specific CEQA analysis as well as the policies and programs of the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. Moreover, the physical impacts have either already occurred, would be exempt from CEQA (under Section 15303), or would be subject to project- specific CEQA analysis, as well as the policies from the General Plan. All future development would be subject to project-specific CEQA analysis as well as the policies and programs of the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. As discussed above, all future residential development on the four parcels identified for residential use by right would be required to be evaluated in accordance with the development code. Future by-right development would still be subject to federal, state, and local policies regarding land use. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, a project applicant would address potential impacts to public services by paying the required development impact fees. The City’s Development Code contains a list of permitted uses for each respective zoning district, which anticipate physical impacts associated with development. Therefore, no new impacts would occur as a result of future development. Because a development project must be consistent with the General Plan, zoning, and development standards of the City, and the proposed Housing Element would not affect land use patterns in the city or result in any physical changes to the environment, the resulting impacts would be identical to the previously certified General Plan EIR. 3. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as the previously certified General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR identified significant impacts for land use and planning, population and housing, geophysical, biological resources, hazards, public services, utility and service systems, aesthetics, recreation, water resources, air quality, and Item 9.a. - Page 192 A D D E N D UM T O T H E G E N E RA L P L A N E I R F O R T HE 2020–2028 H O U S I N G E LE M E N T UP DA T E C I T Y O F A R R O Y O G RA N D E 2. CEQA Analysis December 2020 Page 27 transportation and circulation. As shown in Table 1-1, mitigation measures for the General Plan EIR would also apply to the proposed project. Because the proposed project does not include land use changes and the new and amended programs identified in Table 1-2 do not affect land use patterns in the city or result in physical changes to the environment, there are no new or more severe significant impacts associated with the proposed 2020–2028 Housing Element. 4. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project includes policy-level changes that are limited to complying with state law and does not result in physical changes to the environment. Moreover, the proposed project does not create new impacts or the need for additional mitigation measures. The mitigation measures for the General Plan EIR address significant impacts for land use and planning, population and housing, geophysical, biological resources, hazards, public services, utility and service systems, aesthetics, recreation, water resources, air quality, and transportation and circulation. As shown in Table 1-1, mitigation measures for the General Plan EIR would also apply to the 2020–2028 Housing Element. The City is required to adopt a Housing Element, and the element must be reviewed and certified by the Housing and Community Development Department. There is no feasible alternative to adopting a Housing Element. As with the existing Housing Element evaluated in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Housing Element does not result in significant environmental impacts; therefore, there is no need for new mitigation measures. 5. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as the previously certified General Plan EIR, and all associated mitigation measures would continue to apply. As stated in the response to Standard 4, there are no new significant impacts resulting from adoption of the 2020–2028 Housing Element; therefore, there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives to the proposed project. Item 9.a. - Page 193 ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020 ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Commissioners Jamie Maraviglia, Andrea Montes, Ken Sage, Vice Chair Frank Schiro and Chair Glenn Martin were present. Staff Present: City Manager / Acting Community Development Director Whitney McDonald, Associate Planner Andrew Perez and Assistant Planner Patrick Holub were present. 3.FLAG SALUTE Chair Martin led the flag salute. 4.AGENDA REVIEW None. 5. COMMUNITY OMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The Commission received two supplemental memorandums regarding item 9.a. 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.a. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the July 21, 2020 Regular Planning Commission meeting. 7.b. CONSIDERATION OF TIME EXTENSION 20-002 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18-003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 18-001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE; LOCATION – 184 BRISCO ROAD; APPLICANT – HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY; REPRESENTATIVE –WILL RUOFF, TEN OVER STUDIO Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Time Extension 20-002 for Tentative Tract Map 18-003 and Planned Unit Development 18-001. 7.c. CONSIDERATION OF TIME EXTENSION 20-003 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13-002 AND PL ANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 13-002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE; LOCATION – CORBETT CANYON ROAD (TRACT 2985); APPLICANT – SCOTT PACE; REPRESENTATIVE –TONY COSCIA Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Time Extension 20-003 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13-002 and Planned Unit Development 13-002. Item 7.a - Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4 Item 9.a. - Page 194 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2020 Action: Commissioner Maraviglia moved and Vice Chair Schiro seconded the motion to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Maraviglia, Schiro, Montes, Sage and Martin NOES: None ABSENT: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 9. NON-PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a STUDY SESSION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND RECEIVE COMMENT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002 Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take public comment, provide direction to staff, and direct staff to submit the HEU to the State for review and conditional certification. Associate Planner Perez presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner questions regarding attainable housing, manufactured homes and mixed use zoning regulations. Amy Sinsheimer, consultant, responded to Commissioner questions regarding goals, attainable housing and updates from the previous Housing Element. Chair Martin opened the public comment period. Kris Roudebush, First 5 San Luis Obispo County, commented that the Housing Element should further address child care and intergenerational housing. Ben Oakley Kevin Buchannon commented that the Housing Element does not adequately addressing the problem of the “missing middle.” City Manager / Acting Community Development Director McDonald summarized the Commissioner’s comments. 10. ADM INISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 Case No. Applicant Address Description Action Appeal Deadline TUP20-024 Pastor Greg Wallace, St. John’s Lutheran Church 959 Valley Road Establishment of a Safe Parking Program A 10/07/2020 VSR20-002 Aaron Ganage 241 Stagecoach Road 52 square-foot second story bathroom addition A 10/07/2020 Item 7.a - Page 2Item 9.a. - Page 195 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2020 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Vice Chair Schiro expressed appreciation for City staff and members of the public for supporting local businesses. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS City Manager / Acting Community Development Director McDonald mentioned: 1. The City is conducting a recruitment for a replacement Director and hopes to have a candidate some time in December; and 2. Two development projects have applied for pre-applications to be reviewed by the City Council including a project by the Housing Authority for San Luis Obispo County and a hotel developer at the Faeh avenue site. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. ATTEST: PATRICK HOLUB GLENN MARTIN, CHAIR ASSISTANT PLANNER (Approved at PC Meeting ______________) Item 7.a - Page 3Item 9.a. - Page 196 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue , Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov December 10, 2020 Whitney McDonald, City Manager City Manager’s Office City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Whitney McDonald: RE: Review of Arroyo Grande’s 6th Cycle (2020-2028) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Arroyo Grande’s (City) draft housing element received for review on October 12, 2020, along with revisions received on December 2 and 8, 2020. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. The draft element, incorporating the revisions submitted, meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. The housing element will comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code) when it is adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585, subdivision (g). To remain on an eight-year planning cycle, the City must adopt its housing element within 120 calendar days from the statutory due date of December 31, 2020 for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments localities. If adopted after this date, Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e)(4), requires the housing element be revised every four years until adopting at least two consecutive revisions by the statutory deadline. For more information on housing element adoption requirements, please visit our website at: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element- memos/docs/sb375_final100413.pdf. Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable ATTACHMENT 5 Item 9.a. - Page 197 Whitney McDonald, City Manager Page 2 Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication the City’s housing element team provided and looks forward to receiving the adopted housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact DC Navarrette, of our staff, at David.Navarrette@hcd.ca.gov Sincerely, Shannan West Land Use & Planning Unit Chief Item 9.a. - Page 198 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 2 1.2 Relationship to City General Plan Housing elements are one of eight elements of the General Plan that every California city and county is required by state law to prepare. Under state law, a General Plan must function as an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of values. The housing, land use, and circulation elements form the heart of a community strategy to promote orderly growth and provide housing for all economic segments. State law is very specific about the content of housing elements. The housing element is also the only part of the general plan that is subject to mandatory deadlines for periodic updates that include a review and “certification” by HCD. General Plan Consistency The City’s Land Use Element of the 2001 General Plan designates the sites noted in this Housing Element for residential purposes at densities consistent with the goals of providing housing affordable to a wide range of incomes. The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan and is consistent with the policy direction in the plan. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist in Arroyo Grande’s sphere of influence, so no updates to the General Plan are needed to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 244. As portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure internal consistency. 1.3 Organization of Housing Element As noted previously, the intent of this Housing Element update is to meet the statutory requirements of state housing law. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the laws and its relationship to the General Plan. Chapter 2 is the heart of the document, setting forth all the goals, policies, programs, and objectives for housing in Arroyo Grande. Chapter 3 describes relevant demographics concerning housing needs and issues in the City, while Chapter 4 discusses regional housing needs and provides an overview of the City’s land availability and public services. Chapter 5 analyzes the constraints to housing development and Chapter 6 sets forth a set of regional goals and policies developed in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, and all seven incorporated cities in the County. Chapter 7 reviews the past housing efforts as proposed in the 2014–2019 Housing Element. 1.4 Public Participation The California Government Code states that “the local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” While opportunities to connect with the community are more limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City has participated in the Regional Housing Action Team and the Regional Housing Summit, conducted a study session with the Planning Commission and made the draft housing element available for public review on the City’s website. The City also notified 10 Native American tribes about the initiation of the Housing Element Update in Spring 2020 and invited them to comment on the process and document. The Regional Housing Action Team and Regional Compact efforts are described in Chapter 6. ATTACHMENT 6 Item 9.a. - Page 199 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 3 City staff presented along with the other jurisdictions in the county at the annual Housing Summit held online on September 10, 2020. The summit was organized by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. This year’s online event was split into multiple days. The September 10th event was dedicated to the regional housing planning efforts underway by the Regional Housing Action Team including the regional portion of each jurisdiction’s housing element. Each city and the county presented about their housing element and housing planning efforts and responded to questions from the moderator and participants. Public Draft Housing Element The Draft Housing Element was published on the City of Arroyo Grande website and made available for public comment on September 21, 2020. The City notified key stakeholders via email, as listed in Appendix A. The City also notified these stakeholders about the October 6th study session to give them the opportunity to participate. Study Session The City held a virtual public study session with the Planning Commission to solicit input on October 6, 2020. The format for this meeting was a presentation with an overview of the 6th-round Housing Element update process and solicited input from the members of the Commission and meeting attendees on the public review draft. Five Planning Commissioners, one City Councilmember, and at least three members of the public attended the meeting. City staff and the City’s consultant gave an introductory presentation and then a discussion was held with those at the session. There were no requests for translation services at the meeting. The following is a summary of the comments and questions received at the study session: • The draft housing element is detailed but exceeds the City’s ability to complete all identified tasks due to staff workload limits. Consider looking into other resources that could be helpful to City staff. • Are the goals in the goals, policies, and programs section in order of importance or priority for implementation? • Are Policy A.1 and the programs that go with it the only zoning changes identified in the housing element? • Are there certain areas in the City’s sphere of influence where Program D.1-1 would aim to conduct specific plans? • Does the state enforce the building of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and if so, what they do to enforce? • A commenter asked about a program that was removed from the existing housing element regarding attainable housing and whether that type of housing is different from affordable housing? • The high density, low-income housing sites proposed across the city in the sites inventory should be more well-distributed and spread across the city. • There was a question about Policy A.2 regarding manufactured homes and whether allowing manufactured homes in the way the policy calls for would be required? • The City appears to promote rather than just allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the draft housing element. Item 9.a. - Page 200 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 16 ordinance update, the City will evaluate ADU requirements related to off-street parking, lot coverage and open space, setbacks, maximum size and height and passageways, entrances and orientation; and adjust them as feasible to be more permissive than what is required by state law. The City will evaluate and adopt pre-approved accessory dwelling unit plans to streamline the approval process and lower development costs for applicants. Additional outreach regarding ADUs and the pre-approved plans will be conducted, including the steps detailed in the REAP (AB 101) grant work program. This outreach will include flyers, promotional materials and other outreach to further spread the word about ADUs and ADU-related resources in Arroyo Grande. The City will monitor ADU permitting throughout the planning period to track whether permits are keeping up with the ADUs anticipated in the housing element, including affordability. The City will monitor the number and affordability of ADUs every two years and include additional actions as appropriate including conducting additional outreach if ADU permits are not keeping up with numbers anticipated in the housing element after 2 years and every 2 years thereafter. The outreach will include regular announcements (at least once a month) about options to build ADUs and ADU resources at Planning Commission and City Council meetings and prominent placement of ADU information and the process to permit them on the City’s website. If ADUs are not occurring consistent with assumptions in the element, the City will amend and submit the housing element to HCD to identify adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Amend Development Code by May 31, 2021 and if needed later in the planning period to address any new updates to state law, and enforce state law until the zoning is updated. Assess ADU approval progress by the end of 2022 and every two years thereafter, and conduct additional outreach and amend the housing element after that if ADU numbers are not tracking with projections in Chapter 4 of the Housing Element. Funding: General Fund, SB 2 funds, and AB 101 funds Expected Outcome: Expected outcome is continued consistent production of accessory dwelling units as an affordable housing alternative. Quantified Objective: 15 low income and 14-15 moderate income units/year during the planning period. Total of 120 low-income and 116 moderate income units for the planning period. A.2-2. To further encourage ADU creation, the City shall establish an amnesty program in compliance with Senate Bill 13 to facilitate the process of bringing unpermitted ADUs into compliance with local regulations including the building code by owners of this type of unit. Senate Bill 13 requires under certain circumstances specified by state law, that enforcement of violations related to unpermitted ADUs be delayed for 5 years if correcting the violations are not necessary to protect health and safety. The City program would consider reductions in fees associated with necessary upgrades to bring the unit up to code along with providing information and staff assistance with the steps in the process to bring the unit up to code. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Develop and put amnesty program into place by May 31, 2022. Funding: General Fund Item 9.a. - Page 201 City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element 33 2.2 Summary of Quantified Objectives Quantified objectives estimate the number of units that are planned to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. This information is presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Quantified Objectives by Income Group Housing Program Quantified Objectives by Income Group Total Extremely Low- Income Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income New Housing Production Program A.1-1. 8 27 63 0 0 98 Program A.1-2. 0 0 0 10 10 20 Program A.2-1. 0 0 120 116 0 236 Program A.3-1. 0 5 5 0 0 10 Program A.3-2. 2 0 0 0 0 2 Program A.10-1. 10 10 0 0 0 20 Program A.12-1. 85 85 107 124 291 692 Program C.1-1. 3 3 20 0 0 26 Program C.4-2. 0 5 0 0 0 5 Program E.1-1. 2 5 10 15 0 32 Program F.1-2. 2 5 8 0 0 15 Program I.1-1. 5 10 0 0 0 15 Program I.5-1. 0 5 0 0 0 5 Program K.1-1. 0 5 0 0 0 5 Subtotals 117 165 333 265 301 1,181 Preservation Program H.1-1 0 10 20 0 0 30 Subtotals 0 10 20 0 0 30 Rehabilitation Program G.1-2 0 0 5 0 0 5 Subtotals 0 0 5 0 0 5 Totals 117 175 358 225 301 1,216 Source: City of Arroyo Grande and California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), 2020. Item 9.a. - Page 202 ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2021 ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Commissioners Jamie Maraviglia, Ken Sage, Vice Chair Frank Schiro and Chair Glenn Martin were present. Commissioner Andrea Montes was absent. Staff Present: City Manager / Acting Community Development Director Whitney McDonald, Associate Planner Andrew Perez and Assistant Planner Patrick Holub were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Chair Martin led the flag salute. 4.AGENDA REVIEW None. 5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The Commission received two supplemental memorandums regarding item 9.a. 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.a. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the November 17, 2020 Regular Planning Commission meeting. 8.PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002; HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION –CITYWIDE (Perez) Associate Planner Perez presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner questions regarding the General Plan. City Manager / Acting Community Development Director McDonald responded to Commissioner questions regarding Housing and Community Development’s conditional approval of the updated Housing Element. Amy Sinsheimer, Placeworks, responded to Commissioner questions regarding non-vacant sites evaluated and SLOCOG comments. Chair Martin opened the Public Comment period. ATTACHMENT 7 Item 9.a. - Page 203 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES JANUARY 5, 2021 Kevin Buchanan spoke regarding the letter he submitted and mentioned that there have been no significant changes made to the draft document. Seeing no further public comment, Chair Martin closed the Public Comment period. Action: Chair Martin moved and Vice Chair Schiro seconded the motion to adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the 2020 Housing Element Update and rely upon an addendum to the General Plan EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Martin, Schiro, Maraviglia and Sage NOES: None ABSENT: Montes 9. NON-PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 10. ADM INISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE DECEMBER 15, 2020 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS City Manager / Acting Community Development Director McDonald announced that a new Community Development Director should be announced at the first meeting in February. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: PATRICK HOLUB GLENN MARTIN, CHAIR ASSISTANT PLANNER (Approved at PC Meeting ______________) Case No. Applicant Address Description Action Appeal Deadline PPR 20-027 Kevin and Jeanne Phillips 118 Allen Street Establishment of a Vacation Rental A 1/6/2021 Item 9.a. - Page 204 INTEGRBTED PROGMM EIR (seH 3tf. 2sooisao27 Public Review and Comment DraR, May 21,2001 ATTACHMENT 8 Item 9.a. - Page 205 Integrated Program EIR Table of Contents: Index to Analysis CEOA Section Paae 15122 A. Summary of Proposed Actions and Impacts 15123 Issues to be Resolved: Areas of Controversy b3 Issues Raised by Agencies b2 Intended uses of the EIR 15124 d Summary of Impacts 15123 bl B. Project Description 15124 Location and Boundaries Statement of Objectives C. General Description of Impact Topics: technical, economic 15124~ and environmental characteristics and supporting public 15125 & 15126 public service facilities D. Environmental SettingJImpacts and Alternatives by Subarea 15126 Existing conditions, Prior Plans and Regulations bfcld Impacts of Proposed General Plan albfc Alternatives. Evaluations and Explanations dl-5 E. Relationship between Short-term uses and long-term Productivity 15126e & 15127 F. Effects Determined Not Significant 15128 G. Growth Inducing Impacts Growth inducing impacts of proposal H. Cumulative Effects 15130 I. Agencies Consulted 15129 List of Maps Planning AreafArea of Environmental Concern 1990 General Plan Land Use Element 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Land Use Study Area 2001 General Plan Update Circulation Element Item 9.a. - Page 206 A. Summarv of Proeosed Actions As outlined in the Notice of Preparation distributed on December 7, 2000, the City of Arroyo Grande intends to adopt a 2001 General Plan Update, including Land Use, Circulation, Agriculture, Open Space, Conservation, Housing, Noise, Safety, Economic Development and Park and Recreation Elements. The Update focuses on future development of the urban land use area generally within the City of Arroyo Grande and accommodates an increase in community population from the existing 16,000 to approximately 20,000 residents during the next 20 years, assumed to be "General Plan Build-Out." Some changes extend beyond City limits and propose revisions to the City's Sphere of Influence as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the County of San Luis Obispo's San Luis Bay Plannina Area-Inland, Land Use Element (County LUE) and possible refinement to South County Sanitation District's potential Sphere of Influence areas. The City of Arroyo Grande's 2001 General Plan Update program is located in a larger Planning Area identified as its "Area of Environmental Concern", as shown on Map EIR-1. When adopted, the 2001 Update will amend the current adopted 1990 General Plan which is summarized on Map EIR-2. This prior plan is generally the 'no project" alternative. The draft Urban Land Use Element map best summarizes the proposed 2001 General Plan Update development pattern as shown on map EIR-3. Comparison of the prior 1990 General Plan Land Use map and the proposed 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element map reveal twelve (12) change or clarification Land Use Study Areas that will be the focus of this Draft EIR, shown on Map EIR-4. These maps will be referenced in this program EIR. With the exception of the 12 Land Use Study Areas shown on Map EIR-4, the 2001 General Plan Update generally reflects existing uses, present zoning and prior 1990 adopted General Plan classifications, thus not involving potential impacts associated with changes. There are, however, some minor alterations proposed to land use classifications and related refinements proposed to the names, uses and property development standards of various zoning designations defined in the Development Code and zoning map, both of which will require amendment for consistency with the 2001 Update. These regulatory alterations, amendments and refinements are considered a part of this 2001 General Plan Update and Program EIR, although subject to subsequent Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, recommendations and decisions not yet initiated. In addition to the Land Use Element map, the 2001 General Plan Update includes Circulation, Housing, Noise, Safety, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Elements which also involve refinements or clarifications to policies and proposals contained in the 1990 General Plan. Most of these other elementsJchanges are graphically included on the Urban Land Use Element map, but some changes involve'other maps contained in the 2001 General Plan Update, These will be briefly identified and referred to in the sections of this Program EIR noted below: Circulation Element: See VI, TransportationJCirculation Section; Housina Element: See 11, Population and Housing and also Land Use Element; Noise Element: See X, Noise Section; Safetv Element: See 111, Geophysical, and IX Hazards Section(s) Parks and Recreation Element: See XV, Recreation Section; Economic Development: Included in Land Use Element; and, Aqriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element: See IV Water, VII Biological Resources, VIII Energy and Mineral Resources, XI11 Aesthetics, XIV Cultural Resources and also included in Land Use Element Section. Item 9.a. - Page 207 1 " .- EIR - 2 Item 9.a. - Page 208 Item 9.a. - Page 209 Item 9.a. - Page 210 Issues To Be Resolved; Areas of Controversy The City of Arroyo Grande's Notice of Preparation explained the anticipated significant effects that 2001 General Plan Update involves, both directly and indirectly. Alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce significant effects will be discussed in more detail with each of the 12 Land Use Study Areas as shown on Map EIR-4. These Initial Study Explanations covering 15 topics are the issues to be resolved and/or areas of controversy to be addressed in the EIR: I. Land Use and Planning Most of the developed areas of the City will remain unchanged when comparing existing conditions, the 1990 adopted General Plan or the proposed 2001 General Plan Update. There are some differences, such as expansion of the Village Core and conversion of general commercial areas along East Grand Avenue to a proposed Mixed-Use designation, which will cause different impacts. These are generally shown on Map EIR-4 as 12 Land Use Study Areas, discussed later in this EIR. Because these anticipated changes require zoning reclassifications and amendments that differ from the adopted General Plan and zoning map and may require some disruption of the established community, it is apparent that these changes could involve potentially significant impacts unless mitigated. The 2001 General Plan Update attempts to protect and preserve agricultural resources and operations to the maximum extent legally, economically, and environmentally feasible, including prevention of incompatible land uses on involved and adjoining properties. This proposed policy precludes certain urban use alternatives and impacts and causes development to occur in a different pattern, resulting in different impacts than otherwise probable. The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will consider the potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation policies, where it can be identified that the Update differs substantially from either the existing land use pattern or the adopted 1990 General Plan. 11. Population and Housing As noted in the summary, the 2001 General Plan Update is assumed to provide approximately the same population and housing capacity as the adopted 1990 General Plan, although redistributed to include new Mixed Use and Village Commercial expansion. Because the population estimated for the Update is essentially the same as for the adopted General Plan, it is apparent that they do not exceed regional projections, nor require major displacement of existing housing. However, some sub-area increases may require infrastructure changes or involve different traffic impacts. The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will evaluate the population and housing impacts associated with Mixed Use and Village Commercial expansion as well as other changes in density proposed for new residential developments accommodated by the Update. 111. Geophysical The adopted General Plan includes the Safety Element addressing most geophysical issues, such as faults, ground shaking, subsidence, expansive soils, and unique geologic features. The Update will integrate this element and the mitigation measures, but the potential for increased landside exposure and erosion are inherent in potential additional hillside development. The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will identify where these potentially significant impacts are most probable and suggest further mitigation measures and/or hillside development policies to require site specific soils and geologic studies prior to development. EIR - 6 Item 9.a. - Page 211 IV, Water Resources The impacts of additional growth and development beyond the available water resources was identified as potentially significant unless mitigated by the 1990 General Plan EIR and will continue as an issue in the 2001 Update. The pattern of urban development proposed is similar in most respects and thus "less than significant impacts" are associated with the Update compared to the prior adopted General Plan. However, the change in quantity of groundwater withdrawals and the amount of water otherwise available for public supplies associated with increased population growth and agricultural preservation make these impacts potentially significant unless mitigated. It is anticipated that the storm drainage and sanitary sewer treatment and reuse proposals of the adopted General Plan will be continued and reinforced as part of the 2001 Update. The EIR will identify types of projects and general locations where changes in drainage, exposure to flooding, degradation of surface water quality, or other project related impacts are most probable. V. Air Quality It is recognized that Arroyo Grande is a small component of regional growth and development in a region already experiencing air quality problems and non-compliance with certain state and federal clean air standards. It will be necessary to adopt overriding considerations to continue growth and development despite this potentially significant impact, which is beyond local agency ability to mitigate to less than significant. Land use and circulation patterns are major contributors to the regional air quality problems and these are planning issues that the City can address. The 2001 Update and EIR will qualitatively consider policy alternatives such as Mixed Use that may help mitigate excessive travel patterns. Additionally, estimates based on a traffic model, will allow the EIR to identify where increased traffic may result in congestion, contributing to increased exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollution. VI. Transportation/Circulation The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will evaluate the probable increases in vehicle trips and possible traffic congestion associated with additional regional and local growth and development. To the extent feasible, by qualitative analysis, it will also discuss areas of insufficient parking, inadequate access, or apparent barriers to pedestrian, bike and transit alternatives. The Update will utilize a traffic model to determine where intersection capacity problems and road deficiencies are most apparent. The City has recently established a policy to require all proposed development projects with 20 or more peak hour trips to mitigate traffic impacts not to exceed Level Of Service C considering the existing circulation system. This may preclude implementation of some General Plan land use proposals, regardless of Update, and potentially significant impacts may be experienced due to regional growth, despite the City's intent to mitigate traffic impacts to less than significant. The 2001 General Plan Update EIR and traffic model will identify where circulation deficiencies appear to preclude proposed land use changes. VII. Biological Resources The proposed 2001 Update will involve similar impacts on biological resources as the adopted 1990 General Plan. Increased impacts on creek and wetland habitats and resources will be mitigated primarily by requiring project specific mitigation and where possible by avoiding encroachment into sensitive areas. Nonetheless, these impacts on biological resources are Item 9.a. - Page 212 potentially significant unless mitigated. No new field surveys are part of this 2001 General Plan Update and EIR, but the Update will identify known sensitive areas where such resource studies would be required prior to any consideration for development projects. VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources The Update does not differ from the adopted General Plan regarding impacts on these resources and the EIR will not repeat 1990 EIR discussion. IX. Hazards The Update will note areas of high fire hazard where development is allowed by both the adopted 1990 General Plan and proposed 2001 Update. Although it may not be feasible to avoid exposure to these risks and safety hazards, it may be appropriate to increase required mitigation measures. No other substantial differences are apparent between the Update and adopted General Plan related to hazards. X. Noise The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will identify areas of substantial traffic increases that will contribute to increased noise levels, where these differ from the adopted 1990 General Plan Noise Element, if any. None of these changes are expected to involve exposure of people to severe noise levels. XI. Public Services The 2001 General Plan Update, by accommodating continued growth and development, to approximately 20,000 population capacity, a 10°/o increase during the next twenty years, will impact the demand for additional public services and facilities. Fire and police services are expected to require additional personnel and equipment, and schools will require additional facilities and personnel. The EIR will generally identify and quantify the 12 Land Use Study Areas and sub-areas where growth will occur and estimate the approximate number of personnel and size and/or type of facilities required to serve this growth. For road and general government operations and maintenance, the EIR will estimate the needed additional public services by proportional increase, compared to existing staff and facilities. The 2001 Update will propose continued use of development impact fees and policies to mitigate additional service needs to "less than significant." XII. Utilities and Service Systems The 2001 General Plan Update will require additional electrical power, natural gas, telephone and cable television and other energy and communications systems and facilities to serve additional growth and development, but it is anticipated that these will be increased in capacity with less than significant impacts. Water, sewer, storm drainage and garbage services are more complicated and may involve potentially significant impacts unless mitigated. The 2001 General Plan Update will outline appropriate mitigation measures and estimate where and what type of facilities or service needs will be associated with the 12 Land Use Study Area's planned growth and development to reduce impacts to "less than significant." XIII. Aesthetics Although growth and development will cumulatively contribute to increased urbanization, degrading the scenic, open or natural character of Arroyo Grande's vicinity, design and property Item 9.a. - Page 213 development standards are intended to mitigate these aesthetic impacts to "less than significant," The change from rural to urban uses, for example, generally involves potentially significant light and glare unless mitigated by design review and other controls, most already established. XIV. Cultural Resources Continued growth and development as provided by the 2001 General Plan and Update, can be considered "potentially significant unless mitigated," particularly impacts on historical resources if not preserved. These impacts will require project specific identification and mitigation, but the 2001 General Plan Update will provide generalized, program level mitigation. (Archeological and historical resources should be avoided where feasible to assure less than significant impacts, but where avoidance is not possible, site specific identification, evaluation and mitigation will be required.) XV. Recreation The additional population and development provided for by the 2001 General Plan Update will increase the demand for neighborhood, community and regional parks and other local recreational facilities. This impact is considered "potentially significant unless mitigated", but the Parks and Recreation element contains programs that are intended to reduce this impact to "less than significant." Conclusion Although the 1990 General Plan included a Final EIR and the 2001 General Plan Update involves essentially the same or similar impacts, it is apparent that either project increases potential growth and development compared to existing conditions. Some of these impacts are potentially significant unless mitigated, and others appear individually limited to less than significant but in combination with other jurisdictions' growth, are "cumulatively considerable." In at least three topics, water resources, air quality and transportation/circulation, the impact appears potentially significant and may require overriding considerations for 2001 General Plan Update program approval. The program level EIR is integrated into the 2001 General Plan Update. Responses to the Notice of Preparation were received from: Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) 0 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG); Department of Fish and Game (DFG), State of California; City of Grover Beach; * Lucia Mar Unified School District; San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building; and, Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) letter of 12/13/2000 indicated that the General Plan Update is assigned project number 200100371-LM in the event permits are required from ACE. The letter outlines examples of the type of projects requiring permits which relate to grading and drainage modifications, and proposed land use changes discussed in sections I, land use and IV, water, Item 9.a. - Page 214 Issues and alternatives raised in SLOCOG letter of 12/30/00 relate primarily to the Circulation Element, including bike and transit planning and pedestrian oriented facilities, as well as current Highway 101 Project Study Reports. These will be addressed in the section regarding Circulation. Department of Fish and Game's letter of 2/20/01 requests consideration of specific impacts to sensitive plant species (Pismo Clarkia and Well's Manzanita) found in the Arroyo Grande planning area, as well as creek and wetland habitat impads. These will be discussed in Section I regarding Land Use changes and Section VII Biological Resources. City of Grover Beach response letter of 1/18/01 expresses particular environmental concern regarding drainage and siltation from further development of Meadow Creek (Oak Park Boulevard) drainage area, This issue will be discussed in Section I regarding Land Use changes and Section IV water. Lucia Mar Unified School District letter of 1/8/01 issues or concerns focus on both Land Use changes and Circulation system improvements. Additional coordination with the City for special events, sports and recreation programs were also included as concerns. These issues are discussed in the respective Land Use, Circulation and Parks and Recreation sections of the EIR, I, VI and XV.. The County Planning Department response of 1/10/01 indicates particular concern with conservation of prime agricultural land in and adjoining the City, and also suggests a storm water management program as a part of Utilities and Service Systems analysis. These issues will be discussed in Section I re Land Use, Sections XI and XII re Community Facilities, Utilities and Service System of the EIR. The APCD letter of 1/8/01 requests a complete air quality analysis in the DEIR to adequately evaluate the overall air quality impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update. APCD recognized that a detailed quantitative emissions analysis is not relevant at this time, but requested a qualitative analysis including attainment status to State Air Quality Standards resulting from development. These issues will be addressed in Section V regarding Air Quality. Intended Uses of EIR 1) As noted in the summary, the primary purpose of this program EIR is adoption of the 2001 General Plan Update, including Land Use, Circulation, Agriculture, Conservation, Open Space, Housing, Noise, Safety, Economic Development and Park and Recreation Elements. The EIR will be considered by the City Planning Commission and City Council prior to recommendations and action on the 2001 General Plan Update. 2) The County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will also be requested by the City of Arroyo Grande to consider certain County General Plan Land Use Element amendments within the Arroyo Grande Fringe Area of the San Luis Bay Plannins Area - Inland document. This EIR can be used to enact the increased Planning Area Standards for the Residential Suburban classification in the Arroyo Grande Fringe, proposed as a mitigation measure in Land Use Study Area 5, which is County jurisdiction. 3) The Local Agency Formation Commission and South County Sanitation District will also be requested by the City of Arroyo Grande to consider amendments to the adopted Spheres of Influence. SCSD's Sphere of Influence also includes Land Use Study Area 5, a portion of the County's Residential Suburban Arroyo Grande Fringe north and northwest of the City. If excluded from the City's SOI, it would be appropriate to also exclude this area from SCSD's Sphere, both EIR - 10 Item 9.a. - Page 215 requiring amendments approved by LAFCO. Additionally, Land Use Study Areas 8 and 9 discussed in this EIR, also propose changes to the City's Sphere of Influence that may also require consideration by SCSD, the County and LAFCO. This EIR can be used by these other agencies when considering these respective changes to the Spheres of Influence or subsequent annexations. 4) The City of Arroyo Grande will consider amendments to its Development Code and zoning map to achieve consistency with the 2001 General Plan Update, once adopted. These changes are directly related to the implementation of the 2001 General Plan Update and are part of the actions anticipated by this Program EIR. 5) The City of Arroyo Grande will also consider technical and infrastructure studies and plans such as Drainage, Water and Sewer Master Plans. These will also be reviewed and updated subsequent to 2001 General Plan Update and may be amended using this Program EIR as the relevant environmental document. These infrastructure plans are sometimes considered by other agencies such as County, State, South County Sanitation District, Regional Water Quality Control Board or others involved in funding capital improvements. 6) The County of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) are involved in transportation planning and improvement projects that may implement the 2001 General Plan Update Circulation Element. This Program EIR can be used as a reference document for consideration of project environmental determinations and initial studies related to transportation improvements. Summary of Impacts This integrated Program EIR has been prepared to evaluate the potentially significant impacts to the environment that are reasonably expected to result from implementation of the 2001 General Plan Update. For detailed discussion of potential impacts refer to Sections C and D of this EIR. In accordance with CEQA, a summary of the program impacts are outlined in Table EIR-1. This table lists proposed mitigation measures recommended in response to subarea and project impacts identified in the EIR and a determination of the level of significance of the impact after mitigation. EIR - 11 Item 9.a. - Page 216 2) Rancho Grande-Noyes Road 53 ac.@SFR-LD-PD & C/OS = 35du max. PD&C/OS=2Odu max. 9) Agl, Ag3, Ag4,Ag5,Ag6 xclude 700-1-ac. from SOI, retaining 10)LU2-3 LUlO Lull 60ac. on Hwy 227. 7W&S) Village Area former HC and GC MFR-PD if GPA for more than 45 du may require project EIR. 20, 50 or 95 du& potential vs. 20du@ 12) El Camino Real commercial or prior = LTS assuming Ag buffer. industrial use projects may require existing industrial, nd residential uses POPULATION AND HOUSING 111. GEOPHYSICAL 2) Rancho Grande-Noyes Rd. certain hillside development areas. 5) Northern SOI-Hwy 227 Seismic hazards mitigated by 8) Fredericks/ALC &Williams - construction standards. Require Specific Plans & EIRs EIR - 12 Item 9.a. - Page 217 Project Mitigation Measures Initiate regional groundwater study & resource allocations now to unresolved. Cumulative storm concerns include: 11) E. Grand Ave Mixed Use 12) El Camino Real Mixed Use irculation Element use: state ozone standard still allows more sprawl than proposed exceeded. Update population by 2001 Update. Transportation projection for Arroyo Grande after CAP Amendment to County fringe and South County growth. Mixed Use & compact community development would reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled vs. suburban sprawl. CIRCUUl\nON to LOS 'C' in question with all Circulation Element assured mitigation, Considerations EIR - 13 Item 9.a. - Page 218 sites & maximizes Mixed Use Land Use Element are not addressed in the scope of GP. No identified mineral resources in area. No local programs for new energy conservation measures proposed nor new facility provided. Land Use Element concerns. Major expansion area require project study & mitigation to traffic noise sources. olice & fire service capabilities Developments will provide project itigation but cumulative growth mitigation measures. nywhere in Lucia Mar School District EIR - 14 Item 9.a. - Page 219 Land Use Element to determine mitigation measures. include architectural landscape & development stan- pments contribute dded land. Need implementation rograms for recreational trails & EIR- 15 Item 9.a. - Page 220 Location and Boundaries: The Arroyo Grande Planning Area called the Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) is shown on Map EIR-1. The Urban Land Use Element, Map EIR-2, is the focus of the 2001 General Plan Update and composes the center of the Planning Area (AEC). These area boundaries can be determined in greater detail by use of larger maps on file with the Community Development Department of the City of Arroyo Grande. The Land Use Study Areas, Map EIR-4, indicates twelve areas of potential classification changes inherent in the 2001 General Plan Update, Map EIR-2 when compared to the adopted 1990 General Plan, Map EIR-3. Several of these areas are fully developed and do not involve potential impads, despite proposed clarification to land use classification changes from 1990 to the 2001 General Plan Update. But, most of these Land Use Study Areas contain undeveloped properties and/or sensitive environmental resources which may be affected by proposed development alternatives. The EIR will therefore focus on these 12 Land Use Study areas and identify significant effects, mitigation measures and afternatives to reduce these effects associated with each of the potential changes. Sfafeinent of OL1r'ectives of the Progosed Prooram; As explained in the Introduction section, the General Plan is the foundation policy document of the City regarding growth and development. It is required by State law and must contain seven elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise and Safety. Arroyo Grande has added three optional elements: Agriculture, Economic Development and Parks and Recreation. The fundamental purpose of the 2001 General Plan Update is to comply with State law and maintain a comprehensive, consistent set of objectives, policies and implementation proposals that reflect current conditions and evolving community vision of the future. Changes since 1990 include population growth, housing characteristics and needs, traffic conditions, economic development and commercial trends and increased concerns regarding conservation of small town character and preservation of prime agricultural lands. A summary of objectives outlined in the component Elements include: Agriculture, Open Space and Conservation Element Ag 1. No net loss of prime farmland soils and conservation of non-prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Ag 2. Allocate and conserve water resources for agricultural use and minimize potential Fringe Area and urban development that would divert such resources from agriculture. Ag 3. Current acreage of agricultural uses within the Arroyo Grande's Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) shall be maintained Ag 4. Support continued economic viability of agriculture as a specialized site-specific industry Ag 5. Promote compatible coexistence of agricultural and urban land uses (e.g. Ag buffers) Ag 6, Agriculture classification shall include minimum development standards (2Oac, prime, 40ac. non-prime, ldu/lOac.) C/ OS 1. Protect visually accessible scenic resources C/OS 2. Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy, functioning eco-system EIR - 16 Item 9.a. - Page 221 C/OS 3. Plan for a well-maintained system of footpaths and non-vehicular trails that provide access to areas of non-urban environments C/OS 4. Preserve historic and cultural resources of public interest that reflect the legacy of earlier human settlement C/OS 5. Conservation/Open Space classification shall include minimum development standards: (Sac., 10ac. or 2Oac. minimum parcels and ldu/lparcel) C/OS 6. The City of Arroyo Grande shall manage land use and limit its urban development to that which can be sustained by the available water resources and serviced by the circulation system and other infrastructure. Land Use Element LU 1. The City requests that the County amend its Land Use Element to reduce Residential Rural and Residential Suburban land uses and density within Arroyo Grande's Fringe Area and Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)/Planning Area. LU 2. Accommodate a diversity of single-family residential types and densities within the City. LU 3. Accommodate a diversity of multiple family residential and special needs housing types and densities within the City. LU 4. Provide for a diversity of medical facilities and professional office uses to complement the character and serve the population of Arroyo Grande by designation as Office appropriately located areas of the City. LU 5. Community commercial, office and other compatible land uses shall be located in Mixed Use areas and corridors both north and south of the freeway in proximity to major arterial streets. LU 6. The historic Village Core area shall be sustained, enhanced and expanded as the symbolic, functional and unique business center of the City, with diverse mixed uses emphasizing pedestrian-oriented activities and providing for the needs of residents and tourists. LU 7. Regional Commercial and Business Park uses shall be located along the freeway corridor. LU 8. Automobile related uses, including dealerships, service/repair uses, and light industrial uses may be conditionally permitted in Mixed Use and Regional Commercial areas to assure that their design and operations are compatible with adjacent uses. LU 9. Provide for an adequate supply of Community Facilities at locations to accommodate existing and planned public and institutional uses. LU10. Utilize Conservation/Open Space, Planned Development and/or Specific Plan districts or combining designations for areas of special site development concerns. LU11.Promote a pattern of land use that protects the integrity of existing land uses, area resources and infrastructure and involves logical jurisdictional boundaries with adjacent communities and the County. LU12. Components of "rural setting" and "small town character" shall be protected. Circulation Element C 1. Plan and develop a coordinated and efficient functional classification system of local streets and highways throughout the community: Maintain Level of Service 'C'. C 2. Maintain and improve existing infrastructure including roads, streets, transit facilities and operations, bikeways and pedestrian facilities, to optimize the use of existing facilities as an alternative to new construction. C 3. Develop and support multi-modal approaches, including safety enforcement and educational programs to improve travel safety. C 4. Develop and support multi-modal transportation including transit, bike lanes and pedestrian facilities. EIR - 17 Item 9.a. - Page 222 C 5. Develop land use and circulation patterns that facilitate efficient use of the existing transportation system and are compatible with existing development. C 6. Coordinate local transportation planning efforts with County, regional, State and federal agencies. Housing Element H 1. Encourage continuing supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of existing and future Arroyo Grande residents in all income levels. H 2. Require all approved General Plan amendments and/or zoning applications that increase allowed residential density on a property to allocate at least 25% of the increase be developed for low and moderate-income households by payment of an in- lieu fee, or dedicating land to be used for development of affordable housing. H 3. New housing subdivisions or developments of 50 or more units shall provide at least 10°/o of the total units as affordable to low income households, subject to approval of a density bonus of at least 10%. H 4. Adopt guidelines for the operation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and consider other funding sources to increase low and moderate income housing development. H 5. Housing for low and moderate-income households shall not be concentrated into a single building or identifiable portion of a development but dispersed throughout and integrated into the design. H 6. Require abatement of unsafe or unsanitary structures including buildings or rooms inappropriately used for housing contrary to adopted health and safety codes. H 7. The City shall encourage the conservation of existing mobile home parks, but where redevelopment is deemed appropriate, the City shall seek replacement-housing opportunities and provide relocation assistance to eligible residents. Safety Element S 1. Attain a high level of emergency preparedness. S 2. Reduce damage to structures and danger to life caused by flooding, dam failure inundation and other water hazards. S 3. Reduce the threat to life, structures and the environment caused by fire. S 4. Minimize the potential for loss of life and property resulting form geologic and seismic hazards. S 5. Reduce the potential for harm to individuals and damage to the environment from radiation hazards, hazardous materials, electromagnetic fields, radon and hazardous trees and buildings. Noise Element N 1. To protect the citizens of Arroyo Grande from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise. N 2. To protect the economic base of Arroyo Grande by preventing incompatible land uses from encroaching upon existing or planned noise producing uses. N 3. To preserve the tranquility of residential areas by preventing the encroachment of noise producing uses. N 4. To educate the residents of Arroyo Grande concerning the effects of exposure to excessive noise and the methods available for minimizing such exposure. N 5. To avoid or reduce noise impacts through site planning and project design, giving second preference to the use of noise barriers and/or structural modifications to buildings containing noise-sensitive land uses. EIR - 18 Item 9.a. - Page 223 Parks and Recreation Element PR 1. Neighborhood and community park facilities, including the sports complex, should be provided at a ratio of four acres per 1000 persons (City residents). PR 2. The City should supplement existing park, recreation and cultural facilities when needed and financially feasible. PR 3. Establish a network of recreational trails, bicycle lanes and bikeways for use by local residents and visitors to Arroyo Grande. PR 4. The City will consider all available financing and acquisition techniques in the development of parks and recreation facilities. PR 5. City parks and recreation facilities should be maintained in an attractive and functional condition. Economic Development Element ED 1. Create an economic development-marketing program to promote the City's balanced image and implement the Redevelopment Plan Implementation Strategy. ED 2. Enhance business retention and expansion consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policies. ED 3. Encourage and support the retention and expansion of Agriculture business activities. ED 4. Protect and promote the overall commercial service and retail business sectors of the local economy. ED 5. Become an active participant in the SLO Countywide tourism programs. ED 6. Promote development of affordable housing in accordance with the General Plan Housing Element. EIR - 19 Item 9.a. - Page 224 C. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT TOPICS: Technical, Economic and Environmental Charaderistics and Su~portin~ Public Service Facilities I. Land Use and Planning. The 1990 General Plan Final EIR, Table 1, Land Use Summary estimated that the 2885 acres of residential districts within the City had the potential to accommodate 7575 dwelling units, and an approximate population capacity of 19,500. Approximately 600 acres of commercial, industrial and public facility land use categories were estimated to provide approximately 5.1 million square feet of potential non-residential building area. The City boundaries have changed very little in the 11-year period since 1990 with only a 50-acre low-density residential annexation added northeast of James Way near Rodeo Drive. Internal developments, particularly in the northwest quadrant of the City have utilized most of the 1112 acres classified as "vacant" from 1987 land use inventory. Three large Planned Developments - Oak Park Acres, Rancho Grande and Royal Oak Estates - have dramatically changed the former undeveloped hills into numerous, low density single family residential subdivisions separated by several large open space areas composed of steeper canyons. The commercial north side of Freeway 101 along West Branch Street from Brisco to Oak Park Boulevard developed with the large "Five Cities Shopping Center" as part of this quadrant of Planned Development. Other portions of the City experienced smaller scale developments, infilling scattered vacant properties within the predominantly built up areas. In the southwest quadrant of the City, a specific plan for a neo-traditional residential subdivision known as Berry Gardens was approved, enabling homes in former agricultural field north of Soto Sports Complex. To the southeast of Arroyo Grande High School, Vista del Mar converted former undeveloped hillside within the City into a low density residential custom home subdivision, while outside the City Falcon Ridge Estates replaced former hillside grazing. To the east, near Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road former agricultural field was subdivided for single family homes. From 1990 to 2000, the City of Arroyo Grande issued building permits for approximately 850 dwelling units, almost all of which are entirely single family residential. Concurrently, 54 permits for new coymercial building were issued, the majority for offices. The early 19901s, during national recession, was a period of relatively slow growth with an average of 40 new homes per year and annual permit valuation of approximately $10 million. The 1995 to 2000 period in comparison, was almost triple this annual activity with an average of 125 homes and permit valuation of almost $26 million. The population growth from 14,215 in 1990 to 15,851 in 2000 reflects an average of under 1°/o annually. The 2001 General Plan Update reflects the fact that the City of Arroyo Grande is reaching "build- out", with relatively limited remaining vacant, undeveloped land available for continued single family residential subdivision. Once rural areas of South County, particularly the unincorporated community of Nipomo and adjoining Mesa area are growing at rates more than double that of Arroyo Grande, absorbing much of the regional residential development pressure. The developed land use pattern in and around the City of Arroyo Grande will constrain population growth in the future and require that much of the new housing be higher density multiple family rather than low density single family. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes mostly Mixed Use and Village Core development opportunities. Of the 12 Land Use study areas involving change from the 1990 General Plan, four containing approximately 125 acres enable a total potential of 85 single family residential dwellings, while four other Mixed Use areas containing approximately 80 acres are estimated to provide more than 320 multiple-family dwelling unit potential. EIR - 20 Item 9.a. - Page 225 It is uncertain whether the future land use change, involving different housing type and density, will be accepted in the regional market or population growth will instead seek alternative low density single family development areas. If given the choice, based on historic trends, however, it is probable that low density residential development in the Nipomo Mesa area will accelerate rather than shift to multiple family, mixed use housing projected in the City of Arroyo Grande. It is apparent that the City has few available expansion areas to continue providing low-density single family residential developments, unless it enables conversion of prime Agriculture lands to the northeast and south or commits the eastern Arroyo Linda Crossroads Specific Plan to more hillside residential use than commercial and business park uses currently planned. While these alternatives would respond to short term housing market preferences, they would substantially erode long term Agriculture productivity and eliminate the only significant opportunity for future urban expansion within the City along the Freeway 101 corridor, Arroyo Linda Crossroads. In a regional perspective, approximately 500 acres composing the FrederickIALC and Williams properties east of the urban developed City of Arroyo Grande might be an alternative low-density hillside residential expansion area with 250 or more homesites replacing grazing. This pattern could continue around Picacho Hill on both sides of Freeway 101 displacing vineyards and other agricultural uses eventually merging with Nipomo and Mesa developments in a sprawling South County extension of "Five Cities". Clearly, this land use and planning alternative is not the future pattern preferred by Arroyo Grande citizens. But, unless the County curtails rapid urban suburban and rural residential development in the unincorporated community of Nipomo and across the Mesa, it is the apparent potential. Recognizing that Arroyo Grande and other parts of the "Five Cities" area are now filling up should cause the County to evaluate regional land use and planning impacts before Nipomo and the Mesa become the sixth and seventh cities. The City of Arroyo Grande 2001 General Plan Update, by restricting land use and population growth to reflect apparent resource and infrastructure constraints to urban expansion may inadvertently contribute to acceleration of unincorporated South County suburban sprawl, This is an avoidable impact alternative outside the jurisdiction and control of the City, requiring planning and growth management mitigation by the County of San Luis Obispo. 11. Population and Housina. As noted above, the 2001 General Plan Update redistributes projected population from continued low density single family residential development to new Mixed Use and Village Core multiple family housing potential. The 1990 General Plan build-out population of 19,500 remains as the 2001 General Plan Update estimated capacity. The rate of population growth and housing development within the City is projected to continue at approximately 1% average annual increase, but this assumes a shift in housing type and density that has not historically been a substantial part of the market. From 1990 to 2000 very few multiple family dwellings have been constructed in Arroyo Grande and this type and density of housing may not conform to the rural, small town character preferred by current residents. Nonetheless, the opportunities for continued low density single family residential development in Arroyo Grande are few, unless prime Agriculture land is converted or the proposed eastern expansion area is committed to hillside residential rather than Specific Planned commercial and Business Park urban development. The lack of continued large scale Planned Development for low density single family subdivisions in the City of Arroyo Grande, combined with similar build-out within Grover Beach and Pismo Beach will probably accelerate suburban sprawl in Nipomo and Mesa areas of the South County. Another apparent unintended alternative, also involving unincorporated area, is increased development pressure in the large Arroyo Grande Fringe Area north of the City. While already fragmented and generally lacking adequate roads and other infrastructure, this Fringe Area contains approximately 2865 acres classified as Residential Suburban and 3585 acres classified as Residential Rural. At currently allowed densities of 1 acre and 5 acre homesites, this Arroyo EIR - 21 Item 9.a. - Page 226 Grande Fringe Area implies a potential for more than 2700 rural and suburban homesites and a population in excess of 8000 residents in a 10 square mile area. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes to avoid or reduce this apparent Fringe Area potential by excluding 700 acres of northern Sphere of Influence area from the City's urban reserve and requesting the County to increase the minimum lot size to ldu12.5 acres in the RS classified area. The population and housing impacts of the ZOO1 General Plan Update imply a shift from low- density single family residential to higher density multiple family and Mixed Use housing which are not probable unless the County precludes continued suburban and rural low density sprawl in alternative growth areas. Although beyond the control of the City of Arroyo Grande, the proposed 2001 General Plan Update will contribute to accelerated suburban sprawl of low density housing and population growth in Nipomo, the Mesa and Arroyo Grande Fringe Area unless prevented by County planning and growth management. Conversely, it is improbable that Mixed Use and multiple family housing alternatives proposed by the 2001 Update will occur unless unincorporated area sprawl alternatives are precluded. 111. Geophvsical The proposed 2001 General Plan Update provides for approximately 500 acres of urban expansion to the east including FredericVALC and Williams properties, while proposing to exclude approximately 700 acres from the adopted Sphere of Influence to the north along Printz, Noyes and Oak Park Roads. From geophysical impact comparison, the topography, drainage, soils and hazards associated with eastern rather than northern expansion involve substantially fewer problems although both are hillside terrain. The few remaining internal areas proposed for further low density residential development by the 2001 General Plan Update also involve difficult grading and erosion impacts and increased landside or seismic hazards with potential additional hillside development. Most of these geophysical impacts can be avoided or reduced by hillside development policies and site-specific design and mitigation measures, to less than significant cumulative impact. Of the 12 internal land use study areas proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update, approximately 130 acres of hillside terrain compose five subareas within the northwest quadrant of the City, while more than 700 acres of County Fringe Area to the north is proposed to be excluded from urban expansion. The proposed addition of 500 acres of urban expansion to the east will be separately evaluated by pending Specific Plan and EIR for Arroyo Linda Crossroads and similar future studies of Williams property potential. The 2001 General Plan Update incorporates Safety Element policies intended to mitigate hillside development hazards. Additional site-specific geologic studies prior to development will be required to resolve appropriate Specific Plan and Planned Development design and mitigation measures for cumulative geophysical impacts. IV. Water Resources. The 1990 General Plan Final EIR identified that the City of Arroyo Grande has an estimated total of 1200 acre feet of groundwater supply from the Arroyo Grande Sub- basin, about 100 acre feet groundwater supply from the Pismo formation and 2290 acre feet entitlement from Lopez Lake. The groundwater resources are part of voluntary agreements for unallocated 9500 acre feet estimated safe annual yield of the larger basin capacity utilized by agriculture and other jurisdictions. The Urban Water Master Plan prepared in 1985 estimated that water resources available to Arroyo Grande could support a population of 19,388 based on average daily water consumption of 167 gallons per capita. According to the Water System Master Plan, adopted in July 1999, from 1987 to 1997 water production records indicate that per capita consumption varied from 151 to 197 gallons per person per day. EIR - 22 Item 9.a. - Page 227 Based on per capita consumption of 190 gallons per person per day, the maximum average considered appropriate at that time, the 1990 City population of 14,057 was consuming 2990 acre feet per year. If the same rate of consumption were continued to the projected 19,500 City population at General Plan build-out, it was estimated that approximately 4148 acre feet per year of water resources would be required, 556 acre feet more than currently available. This significant adverse impact of inadequate water resources for maximum build-out under the proposed land use plan was discounted by noting that development generally reaches approximately 75 to 80% of maximum build-out based on potential land use at maximum density. The 1990 plan assumed 80% of maximum build-out or approximately 16,000 population and estimated that existing water resources could serve the planned build-out at or below 17,000 residents, The 1990 FEIR identified the water deficiency as a "significant but mitigable" impact that would require either an additional water supply or limitations on development so as not to exceed existing supply. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes that average per capita consumption be reduced by conservation measures to a maximum of 160 gallons per person per day. More detailed mitigation measures will be outlined in subsequent Water Management Master Plan studies to achieve this reduced per capita average consumption. Increased residential density, more efficient landscape irrigation and other water conservation including more efficient Agriculture irrigation may contribute to better utilization of available water resources. Use of storm water retention and possible re-use of treated wastewater for park and/or agriculture irrigation are among the mitigation measures to reduce per capita consumption. But until more accurate estimates of safe annual yield of groundwater and formal allocation of resources are accomplished, the potential exists for over-drafting the estimated basin capacity. Lopez Lake entitlements are also subject to alteration based on reduction due to siltation, seismic safety or environmental mitigation measures. Groundwater quantity as well as quality can also be substantially impacted by County Residential Rural and Residential Suburban Fringe Area developments not currently calculated as part of regional water resource consumption potential. For these reasons, and because supplemental sources such as Lake Nacimiento Project or State Coastal Aqueduct Project water resources are unresolved, the 2001 General Plan Update EIR considers water resource deficiency a significant impact without apparent mitigation. It should be recognized that the 1990 General Plan discounted prior general plan capacity estimates and that the 2001 General Plan Update only re-distributes the current adopted build-out potential of about 19,500. Nonetheless, the current population of almost 16,000 within the City may be approaching the safe annual yield and City entitlements of existing water resources if the City does not achieve reduced per capita consumption. Although the "no project" alternative of the 1990 General Plan is equally adverse, the City must confront this water resource deficiency as a cumulative significant adverse impact of continued regional population growth. Mitigation to 'less than significant" is beyond the, control of the City and reliance must be on cooperative County and regional agency planning and growth management. A Statement of Overriding Considerations per CEQA Section 15093 and/or one of the findings of CEQA Section 15091 is considered necessary for this potential significant impact. Regarding water storage and distribution, the City's five water storage tanks in three separate pressure zones, in combination with well production, delivered water for both peak daily water use and emergency purposes. The Water System Master Plan recommends that the City upgrade its storage and distribution systems to correct apparent deficiencies. The Main zone will require an additional 1 million gallon additional storage or recommended replacement of Reservoir No. 1 with a new 2.0 million gallon reservoir for a total main zone storage of 5.0 million gallons. The EIR - 23 Item 9.a. - Page 228 Oro pressure zone will need an additional 0.75 million gallon storage tank at Reservoir No. 3 site and some improved transmission mains and booster station to connect with the Rancho Grande zone. Numerous distribution system improvement projects are identified in the Water Master Plan to correct existing deficiencies and enable future buildout. These include large mains in East Grand Avenue from Halcyon to Oak Park; Arroyo Grande Creek crossing at Fair Oaks; cast iron pipe replacement along Fair Oaks, Halcyon and Cornwall Streets; larger mains in the Harloe School area; and mains along Myrtle Street, West El Camino Real, Farroll Avenue, Cherry Avenue and other local areas (See Water Master Plan). Generally, these deficiency correction capital improvement projects will also enable water storage and delivery to the projected 2001 General Plan Update build-out or alternative 'no project' 1990 General Plan land use pattern. These water system improvements would be required mitigation measures if additional development is proposed in deficient areas prior to planned and recommended improvement projects. With refinement of these mitigation measures the water storage and distribution systems are considered adequate for 2001 General Plan Update purposes. It should be noted that easterly expansion known as Arroyo Linda Crossroads will be the subject of a separate Specific Plan and EIR to address this potential development. As a separate water related issue, a Storm Drainage Master Plan prepared in 1999 defines the major drainage systems serving the City. The City is essentially composed of three drainage zones containing 5 retention basins and 9 detention basins (6 of which are private). More than $1.3 million of 'high priority" improvement projects and $0.6 million of "medium priority" improvement projects are identified in the Drainage Master Plan, generally to correct existing deficiencies. However, several additional deficiencies affecting East Grand Avenue, Soto Sports Complex and Tally Ho Road north of the Village are not included but would be needed to correct existing deficiencies and accommodate planned development. These drainage improvements do not necessarily address project related impacts associated with the 12 land use study areas outlined as potential change areas when comparing 1990 and 2001 General Plan Update, Several of these, particularly in Meadow Creek watershed, require site specific retardation basin mitigation measures. The City should formulate a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Program to reduce urban contaminants from direct discharge into the creek system, including inlet filters, settlement ponds an other methods. Additionally, East Grand Avenue and El Camino Real Mixed Use development areas within the 670 acre Drainage Zone A relying on infiltration (recharge) basins will require additional ponding basin expansion. The large Drainage Zone B containing more than 2100 acres drains to Arroyo Grande Creek, composing the eastern two thirds of the City. Project specific impact studies will be required to evaluate the water quality and capacity constraints affecting the Village Core and other eastern urban expansion potential such as Arroyo Linda Crossroads and Williams properties. Generally, however, these project related drainage issues are considered capable of mitigation to less than significant. V Air Oualitv. The Existina Settina and Communitv Issues Re~ort of the 1990 General Plan included a chapter devoted to description of climate, air quality standards and air pollution trends and corrective strategies. In simple terms, the 1990 General Plan was described as a project involving approximately 20,000 population and almost 400 acres of commercial development, but recognizing that the bulk of development and population is already built. The Final EIR for 1990 General Plan adoption estimated that "development will increase the production of air pollutants to 9.5 tons per day", described as a significant but mitigable impact. These estimates were based on build-out with a total of 205,500 vehicle trips generated by 7575 dwelling units and approximately 400 acres of non-residential uses: Carbon monoxide represents 76% of the total EIR - 24 Item 9.a. - Page 229 pollution, oxides of nitrogen 15%, and total organic gases 9% of the total based on air quality model of the 1990 plan. The 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) notes that state air quality standards adopted to protect public health, vegetation and visibility are currently exceeded for ozone and fine particulate matter (PMlo) in San Luis Obispo County. The State Air Resources Board has designated the County as a non-attainment area for these pollutants and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District is the agency responsible for developing and updating the attainment plan for the County. Implementation of the 1998 CAP is expected to bring the County into attainment of State ozone standards within five years, including reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen. The California Clean Air Ad (CCAA) requires the 1998 CAP include the following components: Application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and District permitting designed to allow no net increase in emissions from stationary sources of a certain size; e Application of BACT and reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for all other existing emission sources; Implementation of RACT for transportation control measures sufficient to substantially reduce the growth rate of motor vehicle trips and miles traveled; and, Development of control programs for area sources and indirect sources of emissions. Emission control measures already implemented in the CAP include: e Vapor recovery from industrial and commercial operations; Solvent content reduction; Improved transfer efficiency; Retrofitting gasoline and diesel engines to burn cleaner fuel or replace with electric motors; Catalytic or chemical reduction; e Reduced vehicle use (carpool, transit, telecommute, bike and other trip reduction); and, New source review and indirect source review. According to the CAP, reductions achieved by prior measures have exceeded the 20% minimum targets for both ROG and NOx emission sources, but attainment of State ozone standard has not yet been accomplished. This is due in part to pollutant transport from areas outside the County. But the ARB anticipates continued projections of ROG and NOx emission reduction due to cleaner cars expected in the vehicle fleet. The ARB has primary responsibility for controlling emissions from motor vehicle, fuels and consumer products at the state level, while the APCD is the regional agency responsible for implementation of the CAP and enforcing emissions controls for stationary and indirect sources. At the local level, city and county government and regional transportation agencies such as SLOCOG play an important role in transportation control measures and land use planning strategies. City and County planning agencies are required by law to determine that new development is consistent with the CAP prior to granting project approval. Arroyo Grande is part of the Coastal Plateau region of San Luis Obispo County, containing about 75% of the county population and employment facilities. Arroyo Grande is part of the San Luis Bay Planning Area projected to increase from about 43881 population in 1990 to 57222 by 2010. Arroyo Grande composed 14215 population in 1990 and is , projected to 18676 by 2010, but provides no increase after 2010 in anticipation of General Plan buildout. EIR - 25 Item 9.a. - Page 230 Communities within the San Luis Bay Planning Area are projected to continue population growth at rates ranging from Pismo Beach at 44% to Avila Beach at 16% with Arroyo Grande projected at 31% increase from 1990 to 2010. In comparison, Nipomo and its rural environs composing South County Planning Area are projected to increase from 14845 in 1990 to 25,199 in 2010. This reflects a 45% increase in rural area and a 99% growth rate between 1990 and 2010 in the community of Nipomo. It is evident that the Clean Air Plan anticipates population growth to continue in Arroyo Grande at about the same rate as San Luis Obispo County as a whole, but at a rate substantially slower than South County and Nipomo. The 2001 General Plan Update is consistent with the 1998 Clean Air Plan which projects Arroyo Grande population not to exceed 18,676 by 2010. And the 2001 City General Plan Update proposes many of the land use planning and transportation control measures recommended by the 1996 Guide for Communities of San Luis Obis~o County: "Creating Transportation Choices through Development Design and Zoning". The intent of the Update proposals to create Mixed Use corridors and Village Core enhancement, for example are strategies to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled compared to suburban regional growth alternatives. Chapter 6 of the 1998 CAP describes the relationship between transportation and land use management strategies with Transportation Control Measures intended to reduce vehicle use and facilitate alternative transportation options. Slow speeds and congestion tend to increase emissions of most vehicle pollutants and short trips create disproportionately large ROG emissions. NOx emissions tend to increase in proportion to trip length and vehicle speed, making miles traveled for longer trips an important factor. Currently, average vehicle occupancy surveys indicate 90% of commute trips have only one occupant except along the 101 corridor where average vehicle occupancy during peak commute was estimated at 1.3 to 1.4 between South County and the City of San Luis Obispo. The CAP identifies three mechanisms available for influencing regional travel behavior: o Market based programs such as parking fees, vehicle emissions fee or fees for vehicle miles traveled; * Command and control measures such as school based or employer based trip reduction programs; and o Local agencies can also adopt transit programs or develop facilities such as park and ride lots, transit stops and bike lanes to encourage alternative transportation. Other long term planning strategies with air quality and other benefits are improved jobs/housing balance, planning compact communities and providing more Mixed Use development to reduce trips and vehicle mile traveled. While the 2001 General Plan Update proposes a major emphasis on new Mixed Use developments and provides for higher density multiple family housing in close proximity to major traffic generators, the overall regional land use pattern is clearly one of dispersed low density suburban and rural character. The Circulation Element will promote alternative transportation such as transit, biking, walking and carpooling. However, improved traffic flow by maintaining Level of Service 'C' can also encourage more vehicle use even if accompanied by better alternative transportation modes. Finally, the 2001 General Plan Update proposes a reduction in Residential Rural and Suburban Arroyo Grande Fringe Area development to promote more compact City Mixed Use and Village EIR - 26 Item 9.a. - Page 231 Core development pattern, Although beyond the scope of this General Plan Update, reduced Residential Rural and Suburban growth in the Nipomo area of South County are addFional planning strategies proposed for LAFCO, County, SLOCOG and APCD consideration. Priqr to 2010, the Clean Air Plan should be re-evaluated based on these revised land use and growth strategies to enable 2001 General Plan Update build-out projections in excess of 18,676. Until compliance with State air quality standards is attained, however, this EIR considers cumulative low density residential growth and dispersed employment and shopping patterns conducive to excessive vehicle trips and miles to traveled criteria. The predominant pattern of development in Arroyo Grande including many proposed projects to infill the segregated, low density, suburban residential portions of the City continue to rely on motor vehicle use. Because this pattern is characteristic of all of Five Cities and sprawl continues with regional development in Arroyo Grande Fringe and Nipomo Mesa, the potential air quality impacts are considered potentially significant and unavoidable unless the County alters regional land use and transportation planning strategies. The City will consider a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 15093 andjor one of the findings of CEQA Section 15091 for adoption of the 2001 General Plan Update. It will integrate land use and circulation mitigation measures proposed by the Update to reduce potential regional air quality impacts, but not to level of less than significant. The 1990 General Plan Existins Settinq and Communitv Issues Report included a chapter regarding Transportation infrastructure, The street system includes Freeway 101, State Highway 227 and numerous arterial and coliector routes traversing the local access street network. The major street system lacks adequate connection with the Freeway and the freeway bisects the City with inadequate cross-town routes. The circulation system also includes many dead-end or unconnected local access streets which makes circulation and cross-town travel especially difficult for persons not familiar with the local street pattern. Most major streets traverse developed urban areas and are further constrained by topographic barriers such as creeks, hills and canyons. These circulation deficiencies contribute to congestion of the major and collector street network with few feasible alternatives for improvement. The 1990 General Plan Final EIR identified traffic as a potential "significant but mitigable impact". It projected that additional development will increase traffic in the City from 131,000 to 214,000 vehicle trips per day (1.2 million vehicle miles). Needed improvements were identified in the Circulation Element but funding mechanisms for mitigation were not established. Many areas of the City are low-density residential developments lacking sidewalk or bicycle facilities and not feasibly serviced by efficient convenient public transportation. Arterial and collector traffic congestion, as measured by Level of Service criteria, has substantially worsened since 1990 despite project mitigation measures and collection of traffic impact fees in the City. Although the County collects similar development impad road fees in the South County Nipomo area, it does not mitigate traffic increases in the Arroyo Grande Fringe nor unincorporated Oceano urban area, both of which generally traverse the City of Arroyo Grande along Elm, Grand and Oak Park Roads to access Freeway 101. Additionally, traffic from Nipomo Mesa rural developments often traverse Arroyo Grande along Valley, Halcyon, Brisco Roads and Fair Oaks Avenue to reach Freeway 101. Southbound area traffic from Nipomo and Oceano, also use Los Berros and El Campo Roads to access Freeway 101. These regional circulation problems, most deficient within the city, will be further aggravated by Rural and Suburban growth regardless of the development pattern enabled by 1990 City General EIR - 27 Item 9.a. - Page 232 Plan or 2001 General Plan Update. The Circulation Element Update Map EIR-5 will be evaluated by use of a traffic model to identifj, existing and projected deficient segments and intersections but correction of these deficiencies to LOS 'C' criteria desired by the City will be extremely difficult if not infeasible considering regional development patterns and existing deficiencies. Improvement to Freeway 101 interchange configurations at El Campo, Traffic Way, Fair Oaks, Grand, Halcyon, Brisco, and Oak Park Roads, for example, are unresolved regional circulation problems directly affecting development potential in the City of Arroyo Grande. Highway 227 and Lopez Drive concentrates both through traffic and truck traffic along E. Branch Street through the heart of the Village. E. Grand Avenue is the major gateway arterial street providing regional access to Grover Beach, Pismo Beach and Oceano coastal areas. Thus, the City is confronted with an inadequate circulation system and regional growth patterns which impact the City street network regardless of internal growth and development alternatives. The 2001 General Plan Update can only redistribute local traffic, seek regional trip reduction by better land use strategies, and propose resional cooperation to correct existing circulation deficiencies. Preliminary traffic model analysis reveals significant 2020 deficiencies on Freeway 101, El Campo, Traffic Way, Fair Oaks, Halcyon, Elm, E. Grand, Oak Park, Brisco, El Camino Real, W. Branch, E. Branch, and many collector streets as well as local streets functioning as arterial or collector routes. These models and development alternatives will be the subject of traffic study report concurrent with Circulation Element Update consideration, but it is apparent that significant traffic impacts are unavoidable in the City regardless of 2001 General Plan Update or retention of the 1990 Circulation Element. Except for major growth and development project alternatives such as Specific Plan for Arroyo Linda Crossroads, accompanied by El Campo and Traffic Way circulation improvements, the regional traffic network deficiencies involve significant unavoidable impacts with 'no project' or any apparent land use alternatives. statement of Overriding Consideration pursuant to CEQA Section 15093 and/or one of the findings of CEQA Section 15091 will be necessary for 2001 General Plan Update adoption, The most effective long- term transportation and circulation mitigation measures are dependent on regional network improvements, Mixed-Use and higher density land use developments and future potential shift to increased use of alternative transportation. None of these mitigations is feasible at the local level without County, Caltrans, SLOCOG and other adjoining jurisdictions cooperation and increased priority for funding improvements as well as studies. Some reduction to projected significant traffic impacts can be achieved by project alternatives and mitigation measures associated with local development, but redistribution of additional trips in a deficient network does not alleviate the basic circulation problems associated with regional growth. None of the 12 Land Use Study area alternatives nor the several Circulation Element project study alternatives provide a solution to the fundamental network deficiencies evident in Arroyo Grande. VII Biolosical Resources The proposed 2001 General Plan Update will not substantially impact biological resources identified in the 1990 General Plan if accompanied by recommended project mitigation measures. The Existins Settins and Communitv Issues Report of the 1990 plan identified most riparian area biotic resources along Arroyo Grande, Tally Ho and Meadow Creek branches. Coastal oak woodland, grassland and chaparral habitat areas were concentrated in the northwest and southeast areas of the City where Planned Development had not yet been implemented. The 1990 General Plan FEIR concluded that significant riparian and wetland areas as well as landmark tree groves will be preserved. In 1990 the FEIR summary concluded "no significant impact" despite development continuing in areas supporting remnant significant species and isolation of EIR - 28 Item 9.a. - Page 233 wildlife habitat areas assuming that large areas with native vegetation outside the City to the north, east and southeast that also help preserve native vegetation and wildlife remain rural or undeveloped. Numerous mitigation measures contained in the 1990 Land Use Element and Open Space and Conservation Element policies were cited to conserve biological resources within the City and reduce biological impacts to less than significant, Few residents would argue, however, that cumulative urban and rural developments are eroding the residual natural environment including sensitive plant and animal species. The 2001 General Plan Update EIR will more closely examine the twelve land use study areas where proposed land use changes would amend the 1990 General Plan. Each project involving a sensitive residual habitat area will be required to provide site-specific survey and environmental analysis prior to further Planned Development, particularly for vegetated hillside and canyon areas or contributing to riparian and wetland drainage degradation. Conservation and Open Space classification and combining designations are expanded by the 2001 General Plan Update and additional Agriculture, and Land Use policies are proposed to further mitigate biological resource impacts. The intent of the 2001 General Plan is to redistribute additional Planned Development to the least sensitive portions of residual sites and maximize Mixed Use opportunities for further urban development of lands already partially committed to urban use, preserving and conserving important remaining resource areas. But, implementation programs for riparian corridor restoration, wetland area conservation and wildlife habitat preservation are at best "general". And, storm water pollution prevention programs are totally absent and should be added. The major proposals for Agriculture and open space preservation and resource conservation rely on development project review and private land use compatible with natural resources. These resources are much less disturbed in the large Arroyo Grande Fringe Area north of the City. Unless the County substantially improves land use and property development standards in this 10 square mile Fringe Area, the impacts of cumulative urban development impacts on residual habitat areas within the 5 square mile City limits will be relatively insignificant. Additionally, the City and County will need to cooperate regarding Agriculture and Rural Land conservation practices to better protect natural biological areas in the Area of Environmental Concern surrounding Arroyo Grande, The 2001 General Plan Update viewed in this perspective proposes less than significant refinements to the 1990 General plan. The basic City mitigation measures possible with individual development project implementation are miniscule compared to regional development alternatives controlled by the County. The impacts of the 2001 General Plan Update are considered less than significant in this program EIR context. VIII Enersv and Mineral Resources As noted in the Notice of Preparation, the 2001 General Plan Update does not differ from the adopted 1990 General Plan regarding impacts on these resources. The 1990 EIR conclusion that there are no identified mineral resource areas was reinforced by the Existinq Settinq and Communihr Issues Report. While energy generation and conservation are currently major state and national concerns, there are no apparent General Plan impacts or mitigation measures related to these problems of inadequate generation and distribution. New energy conservation measures and more facilities may be required but these are beyond the scope of this program EIR and the 2001 General Plan Update to address. IX. Hazards. The Safety Element of the 2001 General Plan Update is essentially intended as a series of policy mitigation measures to address urban area natural and man-made hazards. Most of the 12 Land Use Study area changes proposed by 2001 Update refinements to the 1990 General Plan involve reduction to or no substantial difference related to hazards. Particularly in Study Area 5 involving County Residential Suburban Fringe Area development north of the City of EIR - 29 Item 9.a. - Page 234 Arroyo Grande, the proposed elimination of Sphere of Influence for urban expansion and increased parcel size for reduced development density are important alternatives in a natural high-risk fire hazard area. The County should pursue further mitigation of this serious hazard, by installation, equipping and operation of an additional County fire station in this area at least on a seasonal basis, to correct fire response time deficiencies now dependent on mutual aid response by The City of Arroyo Grande. Other proposed land use study areas as well as the County Fringe Area involve increased exposure to fire, slope stability and seismic hazards but these are generally considered capable of project specific mitigation to less than significant impacts, assuming adherence to Planned Development project design and current construction standards. In the Village Core adjoining Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho Creeks, the General Plan Update proposes Mixed-Use development and some increased residential potential in flood hazard and dam failure inundation areas not mentioned in the 1990 General Plan EIR. Site-specific and project-specific flood and fire hazard mitigation measures such as fire suppression systems, flood proofing or special design for planned Mixed-Use developments will be determined on a case by case basis, reducing potential hazard impacts to less than significant. These hazards should, however, be avoided with new essential public facilities and possible relocation of public safety buildings and equipment such as the headquarters fire station and city administrative offices. The further consideration of civic and other public facilities expansion within the Village Core versus the South County Regional Center site on West Branch Street should carefully evaluate safety issues and alternatives. With proper hazard mitigation however, the development pattern proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update involves less than significant impact changes to the 1990 General Plan. X Noise. The 1990 Existincl Setting and Communitv Issues Report contained a summary of noise issues and impacts also addressed in the Noise Element of the 1990 General Plan. The 1990 General Plan Final EIR acknowledged that development will increase additional vehicles which may cause increased noise impacts to residents but concluded that proper planning and design will mitigate otherwise significant impacts to less than significant. The 12 Land Use Study areas proposed for refinement of the 1990 General Plan by the 2001 General Plan Update involve several Mixed-Use areas that may include residential uses in close proximity to major arterial noise sources. These Mixed-Use areas will require site specific and project specific design and construction evaluations to determine necessary mitigation measures. In most instances, site planning to separate residential uses from directly adjacent traffic noise sources will prevent unacceptable noise levels. It is evident that Mixed-Use areas will differ in composition depending on location, parcel size, existing uses in the area, access, adjoining facilities and services, compatible neighboring uses and similar considerations. Not all Mixed- Use areas will enable or include substantial residential development. In any event, the Noise Element contains policies and standards to enable project-by-project evaluations and mitigation to less than significant impact. XI Public Services. The City of Arroyo Grande police department is responsible for law enforcement, investigations and crime prevention programs within the City limits. The fire department, composed largely of volunteers, is responsible for providing fire protection. The 1990 Existing Setting and Communitv Issues Reuort included estimates of local stafYing compared to national and state averages for Cities of comparable size. The City has historically had low levels of major crime or fire loss despite betow average police and fire department staffing. There are no uniform standards regarding appropriate or adequate number of officers per number of residents. Each jurisdiction differs in the area serviced, population density, demographics, land use composition, traffic and safety issues. It is generally assumed, however, that increased size and additional population contribute to the need for additional police and fire department staffing to maintain service levels. Because the 1990 General Plan projected build- EIR - 30 Item 9.a. - Page 235 out at 19,500 population within essentially the same geographic area as proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update, there are few differences in the police and fire service impacts expected. The 1990 General Plan FEIR suggested that cumulative growth would require additional police and fire department staffing but that increased City revenues would help offset additional costs. It concluded that these impacts would be "significant but mitigable". Many of the 12 Land Use Study areas proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update for change from the 1990 plan involve relatively small and internal changes that do not increase the geographic area of the City. The substantial reduction of Sphere of Influence proposed by excluding the northern Residential Suburban County Fringe (Study Area 5) is somewhat offset by potential eastern expansion of Sphere of Influence to include FrederickIALC and Williams properties (Study Area 8). The latter areas will be subject to Specific Plans and separate EIRs while the former have not been proposed for annexation nor previously evaluated for public service impacts. Another basic difference is that the 2001 General Plan Update proposes several existing cornmerciaf areas as appropriate for Mixed Use including the Village Core, Traffic Way, East Grand Avenue, Camino Mercado and El Camino Real. Conceptually, the benefit of increasing potential residential uses within formerly exclusively commercial areas is that such Mixed-Use areas are self-policing and thus safer due to residents providing neighborhood watch. Conversely, Mixed- Use may increase the police and fire protection service requirements due to complaints of incompatible activities and increased intensity or density of development. Unfortunately, there is inadequate comparative information available to conclude either beneficial or adverse impacts associated with Mixed-Use versus conventional commercial development. Rather than imply any specific formula for future staffing, this Program EIR for 2001 General Plan Update proposes project level environmental determinations to establish necessary mitigation of police and fire service impacts. Similarly, the increased need for water, sewer, garbage service, street maintenance, libraries, schools, parks and other public services, infrastructure and facilities are generally considered directly proportional to population and area served. Project level environmental evaluations reveal, however, that public service impacts are not uniform but differ widely depending on location, topography, use, character of development, project design and many other factors. The 2001 General Plan Update involves 12 land use study areas each requiring site specific consideration. But because most changes are internal refinements, the public service impacts are considered relatively minor and capable of project level mitigation, Mitigation of cumulative development impacts, particularly in unincorporated Fringe Areas is a major political problem that lacks clearly feasible fiscal solutions. Land use planning and growth management to prevent substantial increase or intensification of such rural and suburban areas with inadequate public services is the recommended mitigation, but this is beyond the control of the City. Ideally, the City of Arroyo Grande will continue to coordinate and cooperate with adjoining jurisdictions including County, City of Pismo Beach, City of Grover Beach and Oceano CSD to improve regional public safety and service levels as well as public service efficiency. In general, additional impact fees may be needed to offset major geographic expansions such as being considered by Specific Plans and separate EIRs for Arroyo Linda Crossroads and Williams properties. One public service issue only briefly addressed in the 1990 exist in^ Settina and Community Issues Report is public schools, generally the responsibility of Lucia Mar Unified School District to provide. The 1990 General Plan Final EIR had no discussion of school impacts resulting from EIR - 31 Item 9.a. - Page 236 plan adoption, presumably because the plan reduced the projected population potential of the City from more than 24,000 to a maximum build-out estimate of 19,500 population. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes approximately the same build out potential, but recognizes that this implies approximately 20°/0 increase during the next 20 years, compared to existing population. Lucia Mar Unified School District response to Notice of Preparation noted four environmental factors of primary concern to the District: e Land Use and Planning; e Transportation/Circulation e Public Services; and, e Recreation Because most schools within the City are older and all are exceeding design capacity, residential land use is of particular concern. While state law requires the City to accommodate its fair share of low-income housing, the Schooi District notes that this type of housing generates more students per unit than market rate single-family residences. Based on School District data, multiple-family and mobile homes generate fewer students per household than single-family developments, but this is offset by higher density. Lucia Mar School District operates and maintains 10 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 1 high school, 1 continuation school and an adult education school, with total enrollment at 11,000 in 2000. Most schools were constructed in the 1950's and 60's and operate over their intended design capacity. Schools in the Arroyo Grande urban area include: Passage of a recent bond measure enabled the district to start construction on a new high school in Nipomo, a new elementary school in Nipomo and a new elementary school in Arroyo Grande, all of which will be completed after 2002-3. Most of the new facilities are outside of Arroyo Grande but will enable shifts in attendance areas and provide substantial relief from overcapacity in Arroyo Grande schools when opened. These new facilities do not, however, provide for surplus space to accommodate continued growth. Thus, cumulative growth and development anywhere in the District will impact area school facilities. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes no increase in projected build-out population but increases the proportion of multiple family and mixed-use housing compared to the 1990 General Plan. Project-by-project evaluation and mitigation including impact on school facilities will be required for any major Planned Development. ACTUAL 2000 ENROLLMENT 697 586 633 642 3096 Inadequate parking, congested circulation and incomplete pedestrian and bike circulation are among the reasons that Lucia Mar operates an extensive bus transportation system. However, with the exception of the Paulding Middle School, the existing schools are generally located southwest of Freeway 101 while new development in the City has been primarily occurring to the north, requiring cross-town transportation. A new elementary school located near James way and Rodeo Drive will relieve this lack of convenient neighborhood elementary schools within DESIGN CAPACITY 593 538 516 600 1500 SCHOOL tiarloe Elementary No. Oceano Elementary Ocean View Elementary Paulding Middle AGHS EIR - 32 YEAR BUILT 1954 1962 1962 1962 1951 Item 9.a. - Page 237 walking or biking distance. Much can be done by the City to improve alternative modes of school access including proposed priority pedestrian walks and multi-purpose trails, bike lanes and improved transit. Better public transit service and improved parking management will also assist correction of apparent circulation deficiencies affecting school facilities as well as the general public. Conversely, the City and Lucia Mar Unified School District should explore alternative location for bus storage and maintenance facilities currently at Paulding Middle and Arroyo Grande High Schools in residential neighborhoods. District bus routing and scheduling should be programmed to minimize travel during peak hour traffic congestion and avoid problem areas such as East Grand Avenue and East Branch Street where possible. The District has expressed desire to continue cooperative programs for use of school buildings and grounds for community events and recreation programs and requests City participation in providing new gymnasium space, play fields, meeting rooms, swimming pools and additional sport court and recreation centers. Funding at both City and District levels appears inadequate to provide for such facilities unless the public approves additional bonds or other financing. However, The Parks and Recreation Element includes several opportunities for priority cooperation including possible community swimming pool and sport fields on High School property near Valley Road and Fair Oaks and new multi-purpose building and improved playgrounds at Paulding Middle School. The Circulation Element proposes pedestrian, bike, transit and other route improvements to correct school related circulation problems, but implementation programs are similarly lacking. It is apparent that the 2001 General Plan Update involves relatively minor internal land use changes to the 1990 General Plan except for Land Use study areas 5 and 8. Project related impacts are discussed below but the 2001 General Plan focus is to diversify and concentrate land use for more efficient public service provision rather than expand development into alternative Residential Rural and Suburban County Fringe Areas. XI1 Utilitv and Service Svstems. The City is currently preparing an Update to its Sewer Facilities Master Plan to coordinate with 2001 General Plan Update. Water resources, storage and distribution system and storm drainage impacts were discussed in prior sections of this Program EIR. Electric, gas, telephone and cable n/ systems are operated by private companies and are beyond the scope of this report. It is generally assumed that General Plan policies and City development standards contain sufficient measures to mitigate utility infrastructure and service system impacts. The emphasis on Mixed-Use and compact urban form proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update are refinements to the 1990 General Plan that involve relatively minor internal and mitigable impacts. Study Areas 5 and 8 are, however, contrasting examples of alternative external growth and development patterns that are not minor regarding utilities and service system impacts. Because of inherent public service and utility system concerns (among other reasons), the 2001 General Plan Update proposes exclusion of the potential northern Sphere of Influence urban expansion into the Residential Suburban County Fringe Area. Conversely, the 2001 General Plan Update suggests Specific Plans and separate EIRs to evaluate potential SO1 expansion to the east, clearly dependent on major utility and service system improvements not yet resolved. Other than these two study areas, the 12 land use study areas appear to be capable of project related mitigation measures to less than significant impacts. XIV Aesthetics. The 1990 Existinq Settins and Communitv Issues Report included Chapter I11 regarding Aesthetic and Cultural Resources. Scenic resources including most of the natural valleys, canyons, hills, mesa and creeks around Arroyo Grande area are identified as essential to the rural, small town character. Scenic corridors included: Highway 101; Highway 227; Grand EIR - 33 Item 9.a. - Page 238 Avenue; Huasna Road; Corbett Canyon Road; Carpenter Canyon Road; Oak Park Boulevard and Noyes Road; Printz Road; James Way; Camino Mercado and Rancho Parkway; Fair Oaks; and, Branch Mill Road. Numerous scenic features mentioned within the City included the historic Village, landmark trees and groves, Arroyo Grande, Tally Ho and Meadow Creeks, and the wooded canyons and valleys located in the northwest part of the City. Agriculture lands to the south and east are one of the major scenic resources adjoining and within the City contributing to its attractive "rural quality of life". The major issue of hillside development and cumulative reduction of "Aesthetic Resources", open spaces and scenic views were discussed in the 1990 General Plan Final EIR as mitigated by General Plan policies and community design guidelines. While acknowledging the evolution of character from rural to more suburban, the EIR concluded the aesthetic resources, views and most open spaces would be maintained by the General Plan contributing to "No Significant Impact". The 2001 General Plan Update proposes refinements to the 1990 General Plan that classify most undeveloped or change areas as Planned Development, ConservationfOpen Space or require Specific Plan consideration. These proposals, discussed for each of the 12 Land Use Study Areas will reinforce project-by-project design and environment impacts mitigation including aesthetics. The 2001 General Plan Urban Land Use Element policies, as well as Agricultural, Open Space and Conservation Element, are intended to manage growth and urban development to conserve natural resources and enhance aesthetic resources. In addition to prescribing community design standards, the City requires all substantial development projects to obtain design review and approval. Planned Developments and Specific Plans for major projects must also include architectural, landscape and signage design consistent with community standards and City approval prior to construction. The 2001 General Plan EIR considers aesthetic impacts "significant but mitigable" rather than 'no significant impact". In other words, cumulative degradation due to development is a potential significant impact unless carefully mitigated by planning policy, growth management and design and development standards. Development as well as natural open space and scenic resources can be aesthetically attractive. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes a balance recognizing the sensitivity of remaining undeveloped areas. Project design review is an essential mitigation measure for all proposed developments in the City for the 2001 General Plan Update impacts to be considered "less than significant". XIV Cultural Resources. The 1990 Existins Setting and Communiv Issues Report Chapter I11 regarding Aesthetics also addressed "Historical and Cultural (Archaeological) Resources". Property specific surveys are needed to identify archaeological sites, but often historical resources are more apparent. Arroyo Grande has a rich heritage of both with numerous Chumash Indian sites dating back more than 9000 years. During the last 260 years the initial Mexican ranchos were further developed as Californians settled and subdivided for farms and the historic 1862 township of Arroyo Grande. The City of Arroyo Grande, incorporated in 1911, was separated by agricultural areas from the nearby towns of Pismo Beach, Grover City (now known as Grover Beach), Halcyon and Oceano. The slow evolution of the area changed rapidly after World War I1 when suburban subdivisions connected the once-separate communities into 'Five Cities". Fortunately, the historic character of the Village was recognized early as one of the essential features of Arroyo Grande and special emphasis to its preservation and enhancement remain central to the City's General Plan. Although no sites have been officially designated as federal or state historical buildings, the Paulding Historical House, Loomis/Pacific Coast Railroad Warehouse, Santa Manuela School, Old Catholic Cemetery, Old Stone House, Odd Fellows Hall, Bridge Street Bridge and the Swinging Bridge are the eight most widely recognized local "historically significant" points of interest. The Historical Society has a more comprehensive inventory identifying 116 structures of local significance more than 75% within the Village and EIR - 34 Item 9.a. - Page 239 nearby areas. Most of these historically significant structures are located on private property and the issue of preservation or restoration versus removal or remodeling involves questions of feasibility for adaptive reuse. The 2001 General Plan and Village Core design guidelines will help preserve historic and cultural resources according to the 1990 General Plan Final EIR, but probably not to the extent concluded in that document, "No significant Impact". Expansion of the Village Core classification to include adjoining areas along Bridge Street, Traffic Way and Station Way will further enhance Village design character and promote preservation of existing older buildings for compatible Mixed Uses. Additional design standards will be proposed for Village Core expansion areas such as Traffic Way and East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor gateways to the south and west. Site specific, project specific surveys and mitigation proposals will be required however, particularly for projects involving development within the Village Core area. Removal of historic structures should be avoided where feasible and mitigated if not to assure less than significant cumuiative impact. In some instances structural condition, public safety or other considerations may warrant removal, subject to project level mitigation and/or statement of overriding considerations. XV Recreation. The 2001 General Plan Update integrates the 1990 General Plan Park and Recreation Element (1988) policies and implementation programs. The 1990 Existing Settins and Comrnunitv Issues Report included Recreation and Open Space as Aesthetic and Cultural Resources. The 57 acres identified as park and recreation facilities are inventoried in the 2001 Park and Recreation Element Update essentially unchanged from 1990. Needs assessments are also projected to be the same as previously outlined based on General Plan build-out approaching 20,000 City residents and a standard of 4.0 acres of parkland per 1000 population. Neither the 1990 General Plan nor the 2001 General Plan Update attempt to locate the additional 20 acres of park and recreation facilities implied by these projected standards. The lack of community sport facilities, despite development of Soto Sports complex is also apparent and might be addressed in cooperation with Lucia Mar Unified School District on Arroyo Grande High School and/or Paulding Middle School properties. The City and School District might consider relocation of corporation and transportation maintenance facilities to enable these and/or Soto Sports Complex facility expansion. Finally, the City has recently invited discussion with Grover Beach, Oceano CSD and Pismo Beach to address park, recreation and sport facility capital improvement, operations and maintenance as regional issues. The eventual solutions to existing deficiencies can be separated from impacts caused by additional development, the latter contributing either parkland or in-lieu fees. Other project level mitigation measures such as private recreation and open space areas can be included with new Planned Developments. Correcting existing local and regional deficiencies, however, is a more difficult problem requiring cooperative efforts of the City, Lucia Mar Unified School District and adjoining agencies including the County. With the exception of Study Area 8, Arroyo Linda Crossroads and Williams properties and Study Area 10 near Farroll Road, the other Land Use Study areas are not logical candidates for major additional park and recreation facilities. These are either environmentally sensitive residual sites or already partially developed potential Mixed- Use areas. Some potential for certain types of indoor recreation facilities and passive outdoor areas may be satisfied adjoining the South County Regional Center and Women's Club if not otherwise essential to civic and other community facilities. However, this location might duplicate the nearby Rancho Grande neighborhood park and its size and terrain are not suited to needed outdoor sports facilities. The City should seek to identify and acquire the site(s) for park and recreation facility development as soon as possible. This Program EIR considers the Park and Recreation Element policies and park in-lieu fee program as mitigation to less than significant related to 2001 General plan Update adoption. EIR - 35 Item 9.a. - Page 240 Item 9.a. - Page 241 D. Environmental Sewing and Imoacts bv Subarea The subareas are shown on Land Use Study Area Map EIR-4. 1 ,) Oak Park Acres at James Way Ex/st/hg Conditions - Phr P/ans and Regu/at/ons This area is part of Oak Park Acres PD shown as Planned Development/Specific Plan on the 1990 General Plan and zoned PD1.1. The original 1976 PD designated this 5.7-acre subarea for Neighborhood Commercial, but subsequently it was developed with a large church and related school. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes that the property be shown as CF Community Facility rather than Community Commercial as shown on the 2000 draft map. Existing churches and lodges will be distinguished by specific symbols on the LUE Update maps and proposed as conditionally permitted uses in all zones, including PF or CF. Impacts of the Proposed Genera/ P/an Because the site is developed with church, school and related off-street parking and further development would be controlled by conditional use permit in any alternative, the proposed Community Facility classification implies no change or significant development impacts. The existing development does not include resident population or housing. The institutional structures were constructed to current seismic design and building safety requirements and do not pose a significant public safety concern. No increase in water demand is implied by the CF classification. Controlled drainage from development areas particularly paved parking areas, contributes to cumulative urban degradation of surface water quality. If additional church and school construction occur, special mitigation measures to prevent erosion and siltation into Meadow Creek should be required: On-site ponding and siltation basin maintenance are two recommended methods for surface water quality mitigation. Potential church and school expansions, if proposed, would be reviewed by APCD, but would not be expected to exceed the criteria for project significance for air quality (10 Ibs/day of emissions from related vehicle trips). Unless church and school expansion proposals exceeded 20 peak hour additional trips, the traffic impads of such development would also be considered less than significant. (The nearest intersection, Oak Park and James Way operates at better than LOS 'C' with signalization.) Biological resources adjoining the church and school have already been altered by development. If additional development were proposed, the most significant biological impact would be indirect cumulative contribution to erosion and siltation of Meadow Creek watershed, discussed above. Energy and Mineral resources and hazards are not apparent impact issues regarding this study area. The church and school are not subject to substantial traffic noise increases that affect areas adjacent to Freeway 101 and other major arterials. These uses are considered a sensitive receptor that could be impacted by commercial development recently approved in the City of Pismo Beach, but noise impacts could be mitigated by special construction to achieve acceptable interior noise levels if the problem is evident with additional development. The public services and utilities systems serving the area are adequate for existing development despite marginal fire response time. Special fire suppression and alarm systems should be required for institutional expansion if proposed. No aesthetic, cultural resource or recreation impacts are apparent with existing or potential additional church or school expansion on this developed property, other than those normally addressed by design review and impact fees. Conclusion: Less than significant, including additional church and school expansion proposed with traffic, drainage, fire, safety and possible noise mitigation. EIR - 37 Item 9.a. - Page 242 a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 plan; b. Create a CC classification similar to 2000 draft; c. Utilize the CF classification reflecting existing institutional uses; d. Consider Mixed-Use classification enabling commercial, residential and institutional development in addition to that existing; and, e. Consider Office or Residential classification to encourage these alternative uses. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes alternative 'c', to classify the property CF, Community Facility. The CF designation is being created to replace the Public Facility (PF) for facilities such as churches, lodges, and cemeteries. Although some additional community facilities may be developed as conditionally permitted uses in other land use classifications and zones, without requiring General Plan amendment, the City wants to identify where these institutions exist. The non-residential, non-commercial characteristics of institutional land uses are very different than the neighborhoods and districts where they often locate. Traffic generation, parking, potential conversion, hours of operation, and land use compatibility are frequent problems, particularly in low-density residential or agricultural settings. Some community facilities such as cemeteries interrupt prevalent land use patterns or preclude circulation improvements. Others such as lodges and churches may fit well as a transitional use or service facility for meeting and recreational use by neighboring residential or commercial uses. Regarding alternatives, the General Plan Update attempts to avoid the PD classification used in the 1990 plan since that classification did not identify the actual uses allowed by Planned Development, revealed only by research of related zoning and Development Code regulations. The original PD provision for neighborhood shopping at this intersection became obsolete when a large community and convenience shopping center was developed at the southwest corner of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard in the City of Pismo Beach, and the subject property was developed with a large church and related school. The Mixed-Use, Office or Residential classifications would not reflect actual use: Mixed-Use, including ofice and fitness center is being developed on the southeast corner of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard. A wide variety of residential uses at diverse densities compose other parts of Oak Park Acres PD nearby on James Way and Oak Park Boulevard, No additional irreversible changes or growth-inducing impacts are apparent from the proposed reclassification of the property from PD to CF, and potential rezoning to CF. EIR - 38 Item 9.a. - Page 243 2 .) Rancho Grade - Doves Road Ex/thg Condihons, Prior P/ans and Regu/al/bns This remaining undeveloped 53-acre property is part of the Rancho Grande PD shown as Planned Development/Specific Plan on the 1990 General Plan. It is zoned PD 1.2 and shown on the Rancho Grande Conceptual Master Plan as two parcels that are part of "unplanned PD areas". The EIR for the PD indicated 5 units on each parcel but the PD allows 1 unit per parcel unless rezoned. The 2000 draft map indicated Open Space and Low Density Single Family for the undeveloped area, but other single-family densities and open space configurations may be appropriate, Adjoining lots to the south in the City are generally 1-acre while County areas to the west and north are Residential Suburban also allowing 1-acre lots. Impads of l'the Proposed Genera/ P/an These 53-acres contain two parcels of relatively steep slopes, mostly vegetated, traversed by several drainage ways and relatively undisturbed wetland. The sites have not been surveyed or evaluated but would be subject to a project EIR with any proposed Planned Development. The range of land use and planning considered reasonable for this property range from 1 to 53 dwelling units, all subject to Planned Development approval. Environmental impads would be expected to be proportional to development intensity and amount of property disturbed for construction. Population and housing would range from a minimum of 6 residents if only one house were allowed on each of the two existing parcels to approximately 159 if 53 single-family dwellings were developed on the 53 acres. The proposed plan includes a maximum of 35 dwellings which would accommodate approximately 105 residents. The relatively steep slopes composing the eastern half of the property are considered high landslide and slope stability risk while the relatively level areas traversed by drainage and wetlands are potential liquefaction and settlement risk areas. In either event, Planned Development would require site-specific geotechnical and soils evaluations and engineering to mitigate geophysical concerns prior to grading and construction. Water resources for increase of potential development is a cumulative impact issue affecting this property, currently limited to two dwellings. If development were proposed on the lower flatter portions of the property, flood control and drainage would require site engineering to mitigate these potential impacts. One potentially significant impact associated with grading and drainage would be the degradation of surface water quality due to siltation from disturbed hillsides draining into downstream Meadow Creek and extremely sensitive Pismo Lagoon. Prior developments have not adequately mitigated erosion and siltation impacts which will require better design and construction to prevent permanent degradation of these important resources: On-site ponding and siltation basin maintenance are two recommended methods for surface water quality mitigation. The potential for a project with up to 35 dwellings, would generate approximately 10 Ibs per day of air quality emissions but less than 25 Ibs per day, the "screening-level" criteria. Some project mitigation measures to reduce vehicle trips and travel distance would be appropriate, but low-density residential development is inherently automobile oriented, a pattern already established by adjoining existing urban and Residential Suburban uses. A 35 home project if proposed would add approximately 350 trips to the local and regional street system and require traffic study with 20 or more peak hour trips expected. Traffic mitigation measures would be determined by project EIR. Biological resources of the undeveloped property have not been surveyed but are expected to include Coastal Oak woodland and chaparral on the hillside and Riparian woodland and wetlands on the Noyes Road valley floor. Sensitive plants such as Pismo Clarkia, and Well's Manzanita may be found on this diverse residual area at the northwest edge of the City. Energy and Mineral EIR - 39 Item 9.a. - Page 244 Resources are not apparent concerns regarding this property. As noted above, slope stability and landslide hazards are hillside development risks while flooding, liquefaction and settlement are hazards affecting the relatively level portions of the site. Fire hazard due to Oak Woodland and chaparral interface with existing and potential residential development is an additional hazard, particularly due to marginal fire response time from the City's fire station, approximately six minutes away. Noise is not a potential impact issue on this property at the northwest edge of the City except during short-term construction activity. Public services such as fire and police are least efficient at the edge of the City and currently overcapacity school facilities will require student transportation to all grade levels since none exist in this part of the City. The cost- benefit of residential development, particularly low density development at the edge of the City, would be expected to be adverse, including water, sewer, storm drainage and garbage service as well as schools. Although Planned Development for low density residential would be subject to design review and special site planning, and aesthetically attractive cluster development screened from adjoining areas would be expected, the conversion of natural open space to urban use would be a degradation of existing natural scenic character. The alternate potential for conventional subdivision would be much more detrimental aesthetically, however, as roads, building sites and yards associated with large lots if evenly spread over the site would cause removal of most natural vegetation and become visually prominent from Noyes Road as well as adjoining existing residential areas. Cultural resources of this undeveloped property have not been surveyed and impacts on possible archeological areas are thus unknown. Planned Development would require site evaluation to determine possible impacts and appropriate mitigation measures, including avoidance by cluster design. The recreation impacts of potential Planned Development would be off-set by prior dedication of a public park site, payment of park fees, provision of proposed recreational trails traversing the property and possible on-site private recreation commons. The PD would extend equestrian and multi-purpose trails to the edge of the City to eventually connect with County trails in Residential Suburban Fringe Area or along County road rights-of-way. Park and recreation facilities will be provided by the City at Rancho Grande Park, already programmed for improvement. Conclusion: Any Planned Development would require project EIR. a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 plan; b. Classify as Conservation/Open Space and enable one house on each existing parcel or allow consideration of 1 du/5 ac, or 10 ac., implying 5 to 10 houses with PD approval; c. Classify as SFR-VLD-PD to enable consideration of a very low-density, single-family residential planned development not to exceed 1 du12.5 acres, enabling up to 21 units; d. Classify as SFR-LD-PD to enable consideration of a low density single family residential planned development not to exceed 1 du11.5 acres enabling up to 35 units, or 1 du/ac. enabling up to 53 units; and, e. Classify as SFR-LM-PD and C/OS to enable consideration of a LM Low Medium-density single-family residential planned development on the most developable portions of the site, requiring Conservation Open Space on the bulk of the slopes, drainage and vegetated areas. This might enable 53 units or more, depending on the proportion of property classified C/OS versus SFR. EIR- 40 Item 9.a. - Page 245 The 2001 General PIan Update proposes alternative 'd' SFR-LD-PD Single Family Residential- Low Density (Hillside) Planned Development and Conservation/Open Space combining designations to retain natural slopes, drainage and vegetation over the majority of both parcels. Planned Development would allow maximum of 1 du per 1.5 acres and encourage cluster residential and open space up to 35 units. Although the General Plan Update classification as SFR-LD-PD and C/OS combining designation implies a potential for up to 35 dwelling unit residential planned development, that would require a PD zoning amendment and prerequisite project EIR to implement. (Current PD1.2 allows one dwelling per parcel). This is the basic mitigation measure for General Plan Update. Until site specific and project specific analysis is provided by the required EIR, the maximum development would be limited to 1 dwelling per parcel. Regarding alternatives, the Update attempts to avoid use of the PD General PIan classification as it does not identify intended use without research into zoning and Development Code provisions. The C/O$-PD, Conservation/Open Space Planned Development classification alone would be an environmentally superior alternative, allowing one dwelling per parcel or 1 du per 10 acres allowing 5 dwellings or 1 du per 5 acres allowing 10 units maximum, subject to PD zoning amendment. Fewer units imply less disruption to the natural environment and more opportunity for avoiding sensitive resources with cluster residential Planned Development. The classification as SFR-VLD-PD, while reducing potential maximum Planned Development to 1 du12.5 acres or approximately 21 dwellings, also implies possible conventional subdivision into 2.5 acre "equestrian estate lots". If Planned Development does not require cluster residential and substantial portions of the property to remain as natural hillside and wetland, then the lower density could actually increase potential impacts due to greater site area disturbance. Lower density may also be less feasible due to required urban improvements for streets, access driveways, trails, underground utilities, drainage and siltation basin, recreational commons and other residential amenities. The additional alternatives of SFR-LD-PD at 1 dulacre or SFR-LM-PD and Conservation/Open Space on the sloping and wetland areas of the property, enabling 53 dwelling units or more would require General Plan amendment as well as PD rezoning to exceed the 35 dwelling unit maximum prescribed by the Update. This higher density residential Planned Development may be evaluated as an alternative in the project EIR, but the City anticipates that the cluster concentration and design involving more than 35 dwellings would be inconsistent with "rural character" objectives of the General Plan. The higher intensity development also appears to exceed the intent of the original Rancho Grande master plan and development agreement which provided for a total of 527 dwelling units, In any event, the on-site environmental resources, irreversible changes and growth-inducing impacts of more than two dwellings must be evaluated by project specific EIR prior to implementation of the SFR-LD-PD and C/OS development potential. 3.) Rancho Grande - La Canada Ex/sf/iig Condif-ions, Pr/br P/ms and Regu/a&ions This un-subdivided 26.6-acre, vegetated canyon and ridge adjoining single family subdivisions to the northwest and southeast is part of the Rancho Grande Planned Development on the 1990 General Plan, zoned PD 1.2. The Rancho Grande Conceptual Master Plan implied a 40-unit cluster residential subdivision for a central portion of this parcel with the perimeter shown as open space. The 2000 Land Use Policy draft map showed this parcel as Open Space/Restricted, normally applied to public owned property or involving open space easement or similar land use restriction. There is a proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 1998 (VTTM) application also EIR - 41 Item 9.a. - Page 246 proposing a 40-dwelling unit cluster Planned Development which would be affected by this General Plan Update. The VrrM 1998 proposes approximately 16.5 acres (62%) of the total site as private open space. Access and secondary emergency access would loop off La Canada Drive, requiring two bridges or culverts over the creek traversing the west edge of the property, while the other creek to the southeast would remain in the open space area. The project EIR for VrrM 1998 has not yet been completed for public review and comment and it appears that some lots involve grading that would encroach on both creek areas and require removal of Pismo Clarkia, Oak Woodland and Riparian vegetation to enable residential construction. At least seven of the proposed lots lack standard frontage on the proposed public street, instead accessed by "flag lot" shared private driveways. Lot sizes ranging from 5,500 to 30,000 square feet would compose the 40 homesites which may be enabled by Planned Development variation of conventional single-family detached subdivision standards. Impacts of Proposed Genera/Ph The 26.6-acre property is an undeveloped parcel traversed by two branches of Meadow Creek separated by a ridge known to contain significant biological resources, including sensitive plant species. The tentative tract map for a 40-unit cluster residential subdivision, VrrM 1998, provided site survey but a project EIR has not been completed. The proposed land use appears to be more intensive than adjoining low-density residential subdivisions despite the site sensitivity, Access and building areas are not resolved, and mitigation measures and alternatives not yet considered. The relatively flat ridge occupies the central portion of the site, separated from adjoining roads and residential subdivisions to the northwest and southeast by steep slopes, heavy Riparian vegetation and creek canyons. Thus, access and circulation are not easily connected to existing streets. If development is confined to the relatively level ridge area, the potential for siope stability and landslide hazards as well as erosion and siltation would be reduced, but on-site mitigation such as siltation basins appears infeasible without reduction of residential development proposed. Meadow Creek drains to very sensitive Pismo Lagoon habitat, and prior developments have not adequately mitigated erosion and siltation impacts to surface water quality of Meadow Creek. Water supply to cumulative residential development is also a potential impact issue since General Plan buildout approaches or exceeds current water entitlements if per capita consumption exceeds 160 gpd. The low density residential development, whether 1 or 40 units is inherently automobile oriented, but this pattern is established by adjoining development, not feasible altered by this residual property. A 40 home project, if approved, would contribute 400 trips to the local streets and require traffic study to determine possible mitigation measures for James Way and La Canada Drive or other collector streets. Bike, pedestrian and equestrian trials are proposed to traverse the property and partially mitigate automobile trip impacts, but these are not clearly proposed or provided by VrrM 1998 at this time. The General Plan proposal as Conservation/Open Space not to exceed 5 dwellings implies 50 trips, less than significant. Biological resources evident on-site would be adversely affected by previously proposed Planned Development of 40 dwellings including lots encroaching on Pismo Clarkia and requiring reduction of Oak and Riparian Woodlands. Until an environmental determination is completed, for Planned Development of 5 or fewer dwellings the appropriate development density and configuration as well as possible mitigation measures for development impacts are unresolved. Cluster Planned Development has better potential to avoid or reduce environmental impacts than conventional residential subdivision but the density and distribution of development are unresolved. EIR - 42 Item 9.a. - Page 247 Energy and mineral resources are not at issue. Exposure to hazards such as landslide, flooding and fire are dependent on the development design relative to site constraints. Access limitations and proximity of proposed homes to heavy vegetation on steep slopes implies substantial wildland fire hazard exposure. Noise exposure for Planned Development residential is not at issue on this residual site nor is provision of public services and utilities already established to the northwest and southeast. Aesthetics of potential Planned Development would be generally better than conventional residential subdivision but either will degrade existing natural environment. No archeological or cultural resources are known on this site, but would also be subject to project EIR if more than 5 dwellings Planned Development is proposed. The property is near the Rancho Grande Park and Planned Development contributed land rather than in-lieu fees for park improvements. Additionally, proposed recreational trails traverse the property for bike, pedestrian and equestrian circulation. Conclusion: Any Planned Development exceeding 5 dwellings would require a project EIR. The General Plan Update can minimize potential impacts by classification of the property as Conservation Open Space allowing 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres which might enable up to 5 units subject to PD approval. A project EIR would be required and General Plan Amendment for PD approval. A/ternat/i/es, Eva/uat/bns and Exp/anaf/bns Alternatives considered reasonable for this property range from 1 to 40 units, all subject to Planned Development approval. Population and housing would range from 3 to 120 residents assuming normal household population for single-family dwellings, depending on which alternative is approved and included: a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 plan allowing one house per existing parcel unless a PD amendment is approved; b. Classify as ConservationJOpen Space-PD and allow 1 du per parcel, 1 dull0 ac. or 1 duf5 ac. enabling 1 to 5 units subject to planned development approval; c. Classify as SFR-VLD-PD at 1 duJ2.5 ac. for approximately 10 units subject to planned development approval; d. Classify as SFR-LD-PD at 1 duJ1.5 ac. or 1 du/ac. enabling consideration of a planned development of 17 or 26 units, depending on PD and subdivision approval; and, e. Classify as SFR-MLD-PD and CJOS enabling consideration of a medium low density single family residential planned development on a portion of the ridge preserving the canyons and vegetated areas as ConservationJOpen Space. This might enable up to 33 units at 2.5 dulac. if half of the parcel were determined developable and the other half preserved as open space. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes alternative 'b', to classify the property as CJOS-PD, ConservationJOpen Space, Planned Development allowing 1 du per 5 acres which would enable up to 5 units subject to PD approval. Regarding other alternatives, the General Plan Update attempts to avoid the PD classification used in the 1990 plan since that classification did not identify the actual uses allowed by Planned Development, revealed only by research of relate zoning and Development Code regulations. The alternative of CJOS-PD allowing 1 du per parcel or 1 du per 10 acres subject to Planned Development approval would be considered environmentally superior alternatives considering that only one or two homes rather than 5 dwellings would be enabled. However, the feasibility EIR - 43 Item 9.a. - Page 248 of providing access and other required improvements for only 2 dwellings is in question, the extent of other environmental constraints is not resolved. A project EIR would be required for General Plan Amendment and PD, Planned Development for any alternative exceeding 5 dwelling units. By restricting Planned Development to 5 units, the City intends to avoid irreversible changes on the sensitive environmental resources evident on the bulk of this property which would be further protected by the Conservation/Open Space classification. Because the property is otherwise surrounded by existing residential subdivisions and no urban service extensions are required for this limited additional residential development, the project is not considered growth inducing. 4 .j Rova/ Oaks Estates L-x/sf/hg Conditionons, P& Phs and Requhtions This vegetated hillside and creek canyon parallel to and west of Rodeo Drive was designated "Estate" residential as part of the Royal Oaks Estates Planned Development on the adopted General Plan. The area was subdivided into 4 large parcels ranging from 5 to 15 acres in size, each allowing 1 house unless converted to institutional uses such as church as occurred at the north and south end, adjoining Rodeo Drive. The church use on the north end was constructed on 10 acres rather than the original 13-acre lot, enlarging the undeveloped two lots to the south by 3 acres creating a 29-acre single ownership parcel with a "flag lot" frontage on Rodeo Drive to the south. The 7.5-acre southern parcel, approved for church use but not developed has subsequently been sold to a private rather than institutional owner. Existing PD zoning and Development Code allow only one house per parcel unless PD amendment approved by the City enables institutional use: Assuming that 3 undeveloped parcels exist, the current zoning would allow 3 dwellings, exclusive of the area containing the Coastal Oak Woodland grove on the steep hillside protected by a tree preservation easement. The 2000 draft map indicated both church parcels and the two estate lots as 'Open Space", but only the oak grove on the steep hillside to the east is protected by tree preservation easement. Impacts of the Proposed Genera/ P! The proposed General Plan Update provides for Community Facility classification on the existing church property, while the 3 residential 'estate" lots would be designated SFR-LD-PD, Single Family Residential, Low Density (Hillside), Planned Development. The 13-acre vegetated hillside and creek area, including the Landmark Royal Oak tree protection easement would be classified as Conservation/Open Space. SFR-LD-PD would enable Planned Development at a maximum of 1 du/1.5 acres, or 20 dwellings maximum on both existing parcels. The slopes of the western portion of the undeveloped area would require grading for access and development which would depend on density and design. Potential for increased landslide and slope stability exposure and erosion are inherent in hillside development, whether residential or institutional. Erosion and siltation are potential hillside development impact issues, which would impact Arroyo Grande Creek rather than Meadow Creek drainage and require on-site or off-site mitigation. A drainage detention and siltation settlement pond may be feasible and appropriate on-site. Water supply as well as water quality due to increased development potential is a cumulative impad issue, as noted above. Low-density residential development anticipated for the site is inherently automobile oriented but the pattern was established by adjoining subdivisions, not feasibly altered by this residual property. A 20 dwelling Planned Development project, if approved, would contribute 200 trips to Rodeo Drive and possibly require traffic study to determine off-site mitigation measures. EIR - 44 Item 9.a. - Page 249 Alternative institutional uses would be expected to generate more significant traffic, depending on type of use and would require specific evaluation for air quality and circulation impacts. One possible benefit from additional Planned Development might be traffic reduction on the residential segment of Rodeo Drive if a parallel relief collector or local street were extended through this property. The biological resources of the undeveloped 37 acres have not been surveyed nor evaluated, but approximately 13 acres of Oak Woodland are protected by the tree protection easement for the "Landmark" grove east of the creek, while the remainder is not well vegetated. Energy and mineral resources are not impad issues for potential planned development, but exposure to landslide and slope stability would be inherent in hillside development. Noise from this potential Planned Development is a concern to adjoining residents, but has not been evaluated for other low density residential or possible institutional uses. Public services and utilities are capable of service to the undeveloped properties, already surrounded by more intensive residential and institutional uses. Aesthetics of additional low-density residential development or alternative institutional uses are not a significant impact issue, assuming tree preservation and considering the isolated visual exposure for most of the property. Archeological resources have not been identified on-site but would be considered by project EIR for Planned Development. The property is near Rancho Grande Park and Planned Development would be required to contribute impact fees for park improvement. Additionally, proposed recreational trail traverses the property adjoining the creek, connecting the West Branch Regional Community Facilities to the park and church to the north. A/lernafives, Eva/uafions and Exp/anat/on.s The range of land use and planning considered reasonable for these parcels range from 3 to 20 dwelling units subject to PD approval and General PIan Update. Population and housing would range from 9 to approximately 60 residents depending on number of homes allowed. a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 and allow one house per existing parcel unless a PD amendment is approved; b. Classify as C/OS-PD and allow 1 house per'parcel or 1 du/5 ac enabling 3 or more units depending on whether the tree preservation agreement area is included in the PD; c. Classify as C/OS and SFR-VLD-PD or 1 du12.5 ac. enabling 2 or 3 units per parcel, exclusive of the oak grove for a total of 6 to 8 homes subject to PD approval; and, d. Classify as SFR-LD-PD and C/OS at 1 du11.5 ac, or 1 du/ac. enabling consideration of subdivision to approximately 20 homesites on the three parcels exclusive of the oak grove. The 2001 General PIan Update proposes alternative 'd', CF Community Facility classification on the church lot while the 3 residential lots would be designated Single Family Residential, Low Density, Planned Development, limited to a maximum of 20 dwellings total. The vegetated hillside and creek area subject to tree preservation easement Owould be shown as Conservation/Open Space. A project EIR would be required. Regarding other alternatives, the General Plan Update attempts to avoid the PD classification used in the 1990 plan because that classification did not identify the actual uses allowed by Planned Development, revealed only by research of related zoning and Development Code regulations. EIR - 45 Item 9.a. - Page 250 The C/OS classification or the SFR-VLD-PD classification enabling from 3 to 8 dwellings would be environmentally superior alternatives due to reduced residential potential. (Fewer dwellings generally create less impact both on-site and cumulative). The feasibility of these lower density alternatives is, however, questionable due to required access and infrastructure improvements such as street, underground utilities, water, sewer, drainage and proposed recreational trail. Higher density Planned Development alternatives, such as 1 du/ac or 2.5 du/ac are considered incompatible with adjoining Rancho Grande low density single family subdivisions to the west that overview the undeveloped subject properties. The prerequisite for project EIR is considered the basic mitigation measure to determine potential impacts and appropriate design and density of proposed PD consistent with the General Plan Update. 5. ) Pflhfi, Nqves and Oak Park Roads - Nodhern Sphere of Influence Ex/s&/i;tg Condifions, P, Phs and Reguhfibns North of the City limits, the adopted LAFCO plans include a large portion of the San Luis Bay- Inland Land Use Element's Residential Suburban "Arroyo Grande Fringe Area" as within the City's Sphere of Influence, implying potential annexation. Most of the properties along Printz, Noyes and Oak Park Roads and numerous local streets and private driveways branching from these three County roads have been fragmented into parcels ranging from 1 to 5 acres, making future conversion to urban residential improbable. Water, sewer, roads, drainage systems, fire and police services associated with annexation and urban use would be very expensive and require areawide improvements unlikely with hundreds of partially developed Residential Suburban fragmented parcels. The City's 1990 General Plan did not include this area as part of the Urban Land Use Element, but it is nonetheless within both the City's and South County Sanitation District's Sphere of Influence (SOI) approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Composed of more than 760 acres (1.2 square miles) the western two thirds of this large area involves approximately 500 acres of Canyons No. 1 and No. 2, including Oak Park Road and Noyes Road respectively, within the Meadow Creek watershed. The eastern third of the area, containing approximately 200 acres of Poorman Canyon and 60 acres of Carpenter Canyon traversed by Printz Road and Carpenter Canyon RoadIHighway 227 respectively, are part of the Tally Ho/Arroyo Grande Creek watershed. These three separate drainage areas are identified by examination of Map EIR-1, which is an excerpt of the USGS Arroyo Grande quadrangle map used to depict the Planning Area known as the Area of Environmental Concern. This Sphere of Influence area implies a potential "Northern Expansion Area" of the City into only a small portion of the large County Residential Suburban and Residential Rural Arroyo Grande Fringe Area, involving approximately 2,865 acres, and 3,585 acres, respectively. As noted above, however, the feasibility of this large Northern Expansion is very doubtful, due to fragmentation. This 1.2 square mile Northern Expansion Area is both deceptive and detrimental in that it falsely implies potential for more than a 20% geographic addition to the City's current 5.5 square mile area for future urban growth and development. EIR - 46 Item 9.a. - Page 251 Impacts of the Proposed Genera/ P/an The General Plan Update proposes to exclude this area from the City's SO1 and URL except adjoining Highway 227 where SFR-LD-PD would be considered subject to annexation. Additionally, the South County Sanitation District's SO1 would be requested for amendment to exclude this area and the County would be requested to amend the San Luis Bay Inland LUE to include a minimum Planning Area Standard for Residential Suburban to 1 duj2.5 ac., rather than 1 to 3 acre parcels. The land use and planning of this portion of the Arroyo Grande Fringe area is essentially committed to County Residential Suburban standards ranging from 1 to 3-acre lots on private wells and septic systems. The established pattern of 1 to 3-acre lots, each a Residential Suburban homesite, and the lack of urban infrastructure in the entire area makes this Sphere of Influence for potential urban expansion almost totally unrealistic. Population and housing impacts of this Fringe Area development are not considered part of this General Plan Update, but would be substantial and adverse if the Urban Land Use Element extended to the 760 acres of very low density Residential Suburban north of the City. More intensive urban development would increase exposure to natural hazards such as landslide and slope stability risks on steeper slopes and flooding and erosion on lesser slopes lacking adequate drainage improvements. Water resources available to the City are already at a maximum potential buildout excluding this area, which may contribute to groundwater overdraft of the aquifer used by the City and downstream agricultural uses. More intensive Residential Suburban development would only increase this water deficiency and further contribute to potential groundwater and surface water contamination due to excessive septic systems and inadequate drainage and erosion control. This type of very low-density residential development is totally automobile dependent and contributes to regional air quality problems caused by vehicle emissions. More appropriate mixed-use urban expansion opportunities or additional mixed-use developments within the current urban area are preferable alternatives to Residential Suburban sprawl based on air quality, circulation and public service and facility impacts. Printz Road functions as a collector connection between Highway 227 and Oak Park Road regardless of whether inside or outside the City, and is clearly deficient for existing and potential circulation: The County will be requested to address this and other road improvement needs, apparent in the Arroyo Grande Fringe Area. The biological resources of this area have not been surveyed nor evaluated but would be impacted by substantial intensification of potential County Residential Suburban development. The cumulative impacts on water, drainage, plants and wildlife habitat are qualitatively increased proportional to allowed development, and unless additional Planning Area Standards are added to the Arroyo Grande Fringe Area for Residential Suburban, the potential could be more than double or triple the existing. This allowance for further 1 du per acre parcelization is a potential significant environmental impact that should be avoided, but is outside the jurisdiction of the City. As noted previously, the County Residential Suburban land use extends much further north than the City's Sphere of Influence into Canyons No. 1 and 2, Carpenter and Corbett Canyons. Energy and Mineral Resources are not at issue in this area. The apparent hazards of slope stability and fire safety are additional reasons that increased development on I and 2 acre lots should not be continued. The area is more than 15 minutes fire response time from County CDF stations in Nipomo and San Luis Obispo and slopes, limited access, and very flammable vegetation combine to make it a hazardous wildland fire area also interfacing with urban areas. Noise is not an impact issue in the area. As previously noted, the provision of public services such as schools, and utilities such as water, sewer or drainage are inefficient and expensive for such low density partially developed areas. The only portion of this Sphere of Influence area that might be considered feasible for urban expansion is the frontage of Highway 227 at the eastern end of the SOI. If retained in the SOI, this 60-acre portion of the area would be considered for Single Family Residential Low-Density EIR - 47 Item 9.a. - Page 252 Planned Development subject to annexation and extension of urban services. This Planned Development potential and annexation would require project EIR to determine possible impacts and mitigation measures, dependent on development proposed. Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Recreation and other urban service and infrastructure concerns would be addressed in the project EIR. Cumulative and growth-inducing impacts would also be addressed in a project EIR prior to consideration for annexation to the City. The 2000 draft land use map proposed this Sphere of Influence as within the Urban Reserve Limit but classified Estate or very low density Single Family Residential. A/Iernativees, Eva/uaf/bn and Exp/anations a. If not annexed, the County area could remain RS, allowing 1 ac. lots, unless slopes exceed 16 or 30% requiring 2 or 3 acre lots; b. If the County concurs with service constraints and environmental concerns noted by the City, the minimum lot size could be increased to 1 du/2.5 ac. similar to RS areas southeast of Arroyo Grande, by County LUE amendment of Planning Area Standards. Alternatively, the properties could be considered for annexation and classified as SFR- VLD allowing 1 du12.5 ac. in the City, but not provided water, sewer or other urban services; c. If the City, owners and LAFCO agree to annexation and classification for SFR-LD development, the City could enable continued subdivision to 1 du/l.5ac. or 1 du/ac.; and, d. More urban density single-family lots or planned developments could be considered subject to annexation but would require extensive infrastructure improvements such as water, sewer, drainage, streets, fire, police and park facilities. This type of potential appears feasible on only the few parcels fronting on Highway 227, subject to annexation. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes to exclude approximately 700 acres of this area, except the 60-acre portion fronting on Highway 227 which would remain within the URL & SO1 to enable possible annexation, subject to SFR-LD-PD, Single-Family Residential, Low Density, Planned Development. Approximately 2865 acres of County LUE Residential Suburban properties in the Arroyo Grande Fringe Area to the north would be recommended for an increased minimum parcel size of 21/2 acres rather than 1 acre as currently allowed, similar to the Planning Area standard established by the County for the RS area southeast of the City. This new Planning Area Standard would require County LUE amendment to implement but is more consistent with water, drainage, grading and traffic constraints apparent in the Fringe Area. Regarding alternatives, if not annexed and continued to develop in the County at current Residential Suburban standards allowing 1, 2 and 3 acre lots, this 760 acre SO1 area alone implies a potential for more than 500 rural homes, about triple the existing. The total RS area, 2,865 acres of the Arroyo Grande Fringe has an apparent potential of more than 2,000 dwellings if divided into l-acre homesites as currently enabled. Further, the 3,585 acres of Residential Rural Arroyo Grande Fringe Area implies a potential for an additional 700 dwellings at 1 du/5 acres allowed by the County, when fully developed. Combined, this Arroyo Grande Fringe Area could contain 2700 rural dwellings and a population in excess of 8,000 residents, a community about 50% of the current City of Arroyo Grande population within a 10 square mile area, almost twice the geographic size of the City. The adverse impads of this Residential Rural and EIR - 48 Item 9.a. - Page 253 Suburban sprawl, at a potential population density about 25% of the urban area is almost beyond comprehension. Water, traffic and drainage impacts would be at least double the current deficient conditions. Whether continued with individual wells and septic systems or provided by potential community systems, the water consumption of this Fringe area should be estimated to require 1500 acre feet per year, not currently allocated in safe annual yield evaluation of the Arroyo Grande basin. Traffic from 2,700 rural dwellings would involve approximately 27,000 trips per day on already deficient roads and Highway 227 traversing the area. Drainage from the concentration of septic systems and disturbance of highly erosive soils by double the existing amount of Residential Rural and Suburban developments would, unless mitigated, substantially damage Tally Ho and Arroyo Grande Creek riparian water quality as well as internal drainage and wetland areas. Public services for this potential unincorporated Fringe Area community of 8,000 residents would overwhelm available Lucia Mar Schools located in the City of Arroyo Grande, all requiring student transportation. Doubling the existing number of dwellings in the Arroyo Grande Fringe Area, approximately 15 minutes response time from both the San Luis Obispo airport or Nipomo CDF fire stations, would require a permanent new fire station, manned and equipped year around for increased wildland and structural fire hazards. These examples are only a few of the major environmental impact implications of County Fringe Area development without urban intensification. County LUE amendment should evaluate alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce rather than increase development intensity within the Arroyo Grande Fringe area, but this is clearly not a logical expansion area for the City of Arroyo Grande. If annexed and developed at SFR-LD development density of 1 du/ac. the 10 square mile Fringe Area would be twice the size as the existing City and potentially equal to the current urban area population potential. More intensive urban density development could double or triple these overwhelming implications. The cumulative and growth-inducing impacts of urban expansion into only the 760 acre SO1 portion of the Fringe area are beyond the scope of this Program EIR that proposes to exclude all but 60 acres of the current SO1 for City and South County Sanitation District expansions. The impacts of this 60-acre SO1 will require a project EIR to evaluate annexation and development alternatives and mitigation measures. 6 .) Cmho Mercado Ex/sI/hg Condition4 PPrr P/ans and Regu/af/bns Three undeveloped lots remain on the north side of Camino Mercado adjoining Open Space and Single Family Residential as well as cemetery, office, motel and Five Cities Center Regional Commercial uses. The 1990 General Plan indicates these parcels as part of the Oak Park Acres PD, designated for convalescent hospital, club and office uses by the approved PD1.1 zoning. The 2000 draft Land Use Policy map showed Regional Commercial for the entire Camino Mercado area, including the cemetery, motel and office complex and undeveloped parcels. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes Mixed-Use, Planned Development as a more appropriate designation enabling residential, office or other MU-PD proposals rather than Regional Commercial. The cemetery would be classified as Community Facility. Impads ofthe Praposed General P/an - The three remaining undeveloped lots on Camino Mercado are sloping hillside sites ranging from 1.4 to 4 acres each, with scattered coastal oaks and grassland vegetation. One lot has an approved office complex not yet constructed and another office development is being considered for the corner of West Branch and Camino Mercado, not yet approved. A senior housing EIR - 49 Item 9.a. - Page 254 development was recently denied on the third undeveloped lot with traffic impacts and hillside design being impact issues. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes Mixed-Use, Planned Development for residential, institutional, office and other MU-PD proposals including possible small scale visitor- serving and community commercial uses. The cemetery would be classified as Community Facility. The slopes on these lots are generally gradual and not subject to landslide or slope stability concerns with required building design standards. Erosion potential would cumulatively contribute to Meadow Creek siltation unless on-site or off-site mitigation is required. Water supply is an additional impact concern with all development because General Plan buildout projections approach or exceed current water entitlements if per capita consumption exceeds 160 gpd. Water conservation mitigation measures or supplemental supply will be required for full buildout. Air quality impact criteria for Mixed-Use projects do not appear to involve further analysis unless commercial uses are proposed requiring APCD review, Traffic studies will be required for any project involving 20 or more peak hour trips and impacts to Camino Mercado, West Branch and other area intersections that do not meet LOS 'C' criteria with mitigation would be considered significant. Biological resources do not appear to be involved on-site in the potential Mixed-Use Planned Development of Camino Mercado lots, but off-site water quality due to erosion, siltation and/or urban pollutants in storm water is a cumulative impact issue. Energy and mineral resources are not at issue with potential development of these remaining lots, nor are hazards such as landslide, flooding or wildland fires applicable to these sites. Noise may be a concern if residential use is proposed due to commercial and freeway noise exposure. Public services and utilities systems appear adequate for potential Mixed-Use Planned Development, but project specific review would be required prior to approval. The sites are located on a hillside visible from much of Freeway 101 and major streets and aesthetics of proposed development and compatibility with neighbors to the east will be impact issues. Design review requirements will mitigate this visual impact. Cultural resources are not known to exist on the undeveloped lots. Recreation impacts would be relevant if residential use is proposed but mitigation fees would reduce this concern to less than significant. Conclusion: Mixed-Use Planned Development of undeveloped lots totaling approximately 10 acres is generally considered less than significant impact potential except cumulative erosion, traffic and aesthetic concerns which would require mitigation measures, depending on uses and project design. Project specific environmental determinations will be required on each of the three undeveloped lots when Mixed-Use Planned Developments are proposed. A/fernalives, Eva/ualions and Exp/anations: a. Create a PD classification similar to the 1990 plan and allow office, institutional and/or residential uses, subject to PD approval; b. Classify as CF and/or 0 and allow ,Community Facilities and/or Office; c. Classify as SFR or MFR and encourage single family residential subdivision, planned developments or multiple family development. Density could range from SFR-LD having 1 du/1.5 ac. or 1 du/ac to MFR-MH or HD enabling 9 du/ac or 14 du/ac.; d. Classify as MU-PD, Mixed Use Planned Development enabling consideration of commercial, office, institutional and/or residential planned developments; and, EIR - 50 Item 9.a. - Page 255 e. Classify as RC, enabling Regional Commercial uses between the nearby Five Cities (Walmart) and Oak Park (K-Mart) Shopping Centers. Regarding alternative 'a,', the General Plan Update attempts to avoid the PD classification used in the 1990 plan because that classification did not identify the actual uses allowed by Planned Development, revealed only by research of related zoning and Development Code regulations. Alternative 'b.' to enable Community Facility and/or Office uses would not reflect the diversity of existing development that includes a motel and office complex. Neither CF nor 0 classification would enable the opportunity for special needs residential or small scale visitor-serving or community-serving commercial uses such as hotels, restaurants, convenience and specialty stores. Alternative 'c.', classification as SFR-or MFR-PD would also restrict development to residential Planned Development, making existing development legally non-confirming precluding further non-residential Planned Development. Traffic, noise and other compatibility issues and impacts make Single-Family Residential or Multi-Family Residential subdivision or Planned Developments unlikely and less feasible than alternative Mixed-Uses. Alternate 'e.' classification as Regional Commercial would enable and encourage remaining undeveloped lots to be developed for regional shopping. The undeveloped lots are generally too small and sloping for retail commercial development which would cause major grading, tree removal, aesthetic, traffic, drainage and land use compatibility problems with existing office and motel and adjoining Single Family Residential uses. While Mixed-Use Planned Development may also involve commercial uses with similar impact implications, the diversity of existing use and nearby Oak Park Plaza and adjacent Five Cities shopping centers may warrant small scale regional commercial uses among the MU-PD potential uses considered at this location. Commercial Mixed-Uses would probably require project specific EIR, depending on type, design and site modifications required. Cumulative and growth inducing impacts would be considered as part of possible commercial project EIRs but smaller scale, less intensive MU-PD appear to involve less than significant impact potential. 7.) Wlage M~xed-Use Boundares and Uses Ex/sf/hg Conditions, Pror P/ans and Regu/al/bns The 1990 adopted General Plan has a Village Commercial specific boundary defined on the land use map which includes several PF, SR and 0 zones but excludes adjoining Residential and General Commercial areas to the west, north, east and south. The 2000 draft map expanded the Village Center classification to include these internal and adjoining areas, but the enlarged boundaries and allowed uses may create numerous non-conforming developments unless clarified. For example two automobile sales agencies and at least 3 service stations exist on Traffic Way and East Branch/Grand Avenue entrances to the Village. If classified VC, these would be legally non-conforming and constrained from expansion or replacement if destroyed or discontinued. These areas are currently zoned Highway Commercial which allows vehicle- oriented and general commercial uses. The 21-acre Myrtle and Cherry SFR-LD area was shown as SFR-MD on the 2000 draft map, implying increase from 20du to approximately lOOdu potential. Existing Single Family Residential development adjoining the Village to the west, north and east are not logical candidates for Mixed-Use expansion, particularly commercial uses of the type encouraged in the Village. The Office district southeast of the Village also extends to Whitely Avenue which is also exclusively Single Family Residential use. EIR - 51 Item 9.a. - Page 256 The 2000 draft map indicated Single Family Residential and Village Center land use on a 12-14 acre remaining 1990 Agriculture designated property south of Cherry Avenue east of Traffic Way and a 5-acre adjoining hillside property. This subarea south of the Village is a significant Ag preservation or conversion issue that must be addressed. Each of these expansion areas is separately considered in the following descriptions because each is already developed differently. 1,s of the Proposed Genera/ P/an The 2001 General Plan Update proposes to classify: 7 W,-N), & E) Single Family residential areas to the west, north, east and southeast of E. Branch commercial and civic uses SFR-MD rather than Village Core. 7 W&S) Existing Highway Commercial and General Commercial uses, both classified as General Commercial on the 1990 plan, will be reclassified as MU, Mixed- Use rather than VC, Village Core because each contains some uses that would become legally non-conforming if classified VC. 7 S The undeveloped 2 acre portion of properties southeast of Traffic Way and Cherry Avenue, classified General Commercial on the 1990 plan reclassified Mixed-Use despite current Agricultural use and prime Ag soils. This MU classification would require mitigation measures outlined in the General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element text. The 12 acres south of Cherry Avenue and east of Traffic Way frontage classified Agriculture on the 1990 plan and was proposed as Single Family Residential-Medium Density by the draft 2000 Land Use Policy map, a "widowed" area of prime Ag soils implying exception to or mitigation of loss of prime Ag use and soils. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes retention of the Agriculture classification as an environmentally superior alternative. The adjoining 5 acre hillside property (Hayes) not involving Ag use nor prime Ag soils would be reclassified from Ag to Single Family Residential, Low Density and C/OS, Conservation/Open Space, This parcel is accessible from Cherry Avenue and Huebner Lane, a private drive also used for maintenance access to a City water tank further southeast adjoining FredericVALC properties discussed as subarea 8 hereinafter. (The steep vegetated hillside traversed by Huebner Lane off Branch Mill Road is an environmentally sensitive Conservation/Open Space area while the water tank site is classified Community Facility.) One change to the 1990 General Plan and current zoning different than the prior proposals discussed during formulation of the 2001 General Plan Update, involves the approximately 21- acre area south of Arroyo Grande Creek east of Garden Street along Myrtle and East Cherry Avenue. The 2000 draft Land Use Policy map proposed this area of existing large lots as a potential Single Family Residential, Medium Density, which would enable almost 100 dwellings compared to the existing potential for 22 1-acre lots. The 2001 General Plan instead proposes consideration of alternative from LD to MD ranging form 20 to 100 du [Single Family Residential, Low Medium Density which would enable approximately 55 dwellings at a density of 2.5du/ac., an increase of about 33 over existing potential]. It shoutd be recognized that this fragmented large lot area may require area owners to cooperate for future subdivision planning since street, drainage, water, sewer and other infrastructure for single family residential development are currently inadequate. If coordination or cooperation is lacking or more intensive residential EIR - 52 Item 9.a. - Page 257 subdivision is proposed, a project EIR for mitigation of potentially significant impacts would be required. Other than this subarea and Village Core Mixed Use projects, the impacts of the proposed 2001 General Plan Update are not substantially different than considered with the 1990 General Plan. Avoiding Village expansion into existing Single Family Residential subdivided and developed areas to the west, north and east reduces potential change to less than significant. Similarly, classification as Mixed Use rather than Village Core or General Commercial to the west and south better reflects established existing uses including auto dealerships, service stations, motel, highway and general commercial service uses. The more confined Village Core potential along East Branch, Traffic Way and Station Way may involve potentially significant traffic, parking, flood protection, historic resource and other impact issues discussed below but also associated with the 1990 General Plan, the 'no project' alternative. The most significant proposed land use and planning change and impact potential to the VC classification is allowance for residential uses. The potential for additional population and housing is somewhat speculative and will depend on individual VC Mixed Use developments that will be subject to subsequent environmental determinations and possible project EIRs. Most of the VC area is subject to seismic, safety and building design mitigation measures to address geophysical, fire, flood and other safety hazards. Cumulative water resource concerns associated with projected urban use exceeding current water supply entitlements are relevant with VC intensification or expansion, but the service infrastructure for delivery and fire suppression is already established and required regardless of proposed changes. Water quality impacts due to increased intensity and urban pollution of storm drainage directly into adjoining Tally Ho and Arroyo Grande Creeks is an issue requiring further City analysis and mitigation. Regional Water Quality Control basin plan amendments and recent EPA storm water pollution prevention plan requirements will influence future development project potential and required mitigation measures. The "multi-modal" mixed-use of Village Core development will reduce potential air quality impacts and transportation/circulation issues compared to alternative single purpose Regional Commercial development. But the recognized parking deficiencies and circulation constraints apparent along East Branch Street through the Village Core will obviously complicate proposed expansion or intensification proposals or projects. Specifically, it is very doubtful that Village Core projects could comply with LOS 'C' traffic mitigation criteria required by current development policy. Portions of the Village Core also adjoin Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho Creeks which inherently involve biological resources, flood hazards and drainagelwater quality impacts. Energy and mineral resources are not at issue with Village Core development. Fire, seismic and flood hazards and related mitigation such as unreinforced masonry building retrofit, flood protection and fire suppression problems related to historic buildings are all unavoidable impact issues. If residential uses are integrated into the Village Core, noise, parking and public services and facilities are increasingly complex, regardless of general desirability of such Mixed Uses. Both aesthetics and land use compatibility issues will require refinement of Village Core design guidelines and development standards. Additionally, the preservation of historic buildings is a project-related as well as cumulative impact issue particularly in the Village Core where numerous substandard but historic or culturally significant structures remain. Recreation related impacts can be mitigated to less than significant by project design linking creekside and streetscape pedestrian areas and plazas to the Nelson Green and other urban Village Core amenities as well as contribution to park in-lieu fees for recreation improvements. Village Core intensification and expansion does not introduce new growth inducing or cumulative impact issues despite increased employment and economic development opportunities identified by the Update compared to the 1990 General Plan and EIR. EIR - 53 Item 9.a. - Page 258 A/i.ernates, E~a/lrafons and Exphnations Village Core enhancement and expansion of the historic pedestrian-oriented resident and tourist- serving commercial, office and compatible mixed uses is a basic planning objective. This does not, however, require redevelopment of any areas adjoining the existing Village Core. A gradual transition and more dispersed character, while still pedestrian oriented, is more characteristic of the "rural small town" qualities already evident in these predominantly non-residential areas. Several Core expansion opportunities are apparent without encroaching into the single-family subdivisions and development west of Wesley, north of Le Point, east of the foot of Crown Hill or south of the "Nelson Green" frontage. The basic alternatives focus on Station Way, Traffic Way and E. Branch adjoining the Village Core, excluding established residential areas. The Station Way commercial development known as "Village Center" is one opportunity for evolution into a more diverse, pedestrian oriented shopping, dining and office complex with different "rural" rather than historic architectural character. As Bridge Street and Traffic Way become more intensive extensions of the Village Core, the Village Center can also evolve into a compatible, connected and more concentrated activity "node" as part of the Village Core area. Similarly, Village Core expansion easterly on E. Branch Street to the foot of the Crown Hill is already in progress and evolving with "Creekside Center" proposed on the 3.5 acre Loomis property. This mixed-use development would contain approximately 33,000 sq.ft. of retail and office use and four dwellings. The current City Hall, Council Chambers office buildings and convenience store and converted residential structures near Mason Street can all be retained or evolve to a more concentrated pedestrian-oriented shopping, service, dining, civic and cultural activity center with additional buildings added along the street frontage. To the extent feasible, historic buildings should be retained and restored, but if replacement or relocation is necessary, the new structures should emphasize the design characteristics of the historic Village Core: Two or three story, finely detailed storefront and pedestrian streetscape is essential on E. Branch. For the most part, parking behind or beside buildings with minimum driveway crossings of E. Branch Street will best achieve the Village Core expansion and encourage the desired design character. The preliminary concept of Village Core expansion proposed by 2000 draft Land Use policy, extended south of Poole along Traffic Way to Freeway 101. This alternative would encompass two automobile sales and service agencies which are clearly different character than Village Core, Many other existing uses, including motel, swim club, service station and auto repair shops, storage and various other general and highway commercial uses make this area a diverse Mixed Use area as reflected in the proposed 2001 General Plan Update. Classification as Village Core while an alternative, would make the prevailing use pattern legally non-conforming and imply relocation and redevelopment rather than recycling buildings and retention of many existing uses. Another alternative for the Traffic Way frontage would be to classify it General Commercial or Highway Commercial to encourage these uses rather than enabling offices, retail and residential components in the proposed Mixed-Use district. Either accommodates existing auto sales and service and enables similar automobile-oriented businesses and commercial services in the Traffic Way area. The most controversial alternative in Land Use study subarea "7-S" involves the 12 acres of residual Agriculture land on the south side of Cherry Avenue, currently cultivated. The range of uses possible on these 12 acres spans from Agriculture preservation to allowing Village Core Mixed Use or Business Park. Because single-family homes front on the north side of Cherry Avenue, adjoin to the east and are above on the hillside along Trinity Avenue, residential is a consistent, compatible development alternative. Neo-traditional or other compact subdivision for EIR - 54 Item 9.a. - Page 259 Single-Family Residential, Medium Density, Planned Development would fit the developed environs but involve potential cumulative significant impacts associated with Ag conversion, possibly contrary to Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element policies outlined in the General Plan Update. In addition to loss of Ag land, Ag conversion involves land use and planning issues, population and housing policy implications, traffic and circulation impacts and air quality impacts associated with development. It can be estimated that at 5 du/ac, 12 acres of SFR-MD Planned Development would enable a potential for 60 dwellings or 180 residents, 600 trips per day for example. Geophysical, water resource and water quality and biological resources associated with Planned Development of Ag land conversion are not substantially different than alternative residential development areas, but this illustrates that Ag land conversion is NOT essential or without option. Energy and mineral resources are not at issue nor are hazards and noise significant issues with potential development of this property. The basic justification for Ag conversion is the availability and efficiency of public services, utilities and service systems adjoining and surrounding these 14 acres. Partial conversion for Mixed Use further reduces and isolates the remaining acreage currently cultivated and irrigated despite urban environs. Water, sewer, drainage, garbage, fire, police, parks, schools and other infrastructure and facilities are all established in the area and capable of servicing alternative SFR-MD-PD and Mixed Use development. Design and development mitigations would be determined by site and project specific EIR including aesthetic, cultural resource and recreation impacts and alternatives. No growth inducing impacts are apparent with this possible Ag conversion, but cumulative impacts have been identified as significant as a matter of policy. As a preferred alternative, the 2001 General Plan Update proposes Single Family Residential Low to Medium Density subdivision of an already fragmented residential area further east on Cherry and Myrtle Avenues. 8 .) FredericwAL C and W/fiams Properlies Inside and OuMe of Cii L/inits and Sphere of Influence (SO/) Ex/sI/hg Condilions, Pr/br P/ms and Regu//atons The 1990 General Plan designates the portions of the Frederick/ALC properties within the City as Residential Rural and Residential Hillside with the latter requiring Specific Plan and encouraging cluster development possibly including other uses. The portion of Fredericks property outside the City north of Freeway 101 and El Campo Road is classified Agriculture in the County Land Use Element but is within the adopted Sphere of Influence implying potential annexation. The Williams property further southeast is outside the San Luis Bay planning area, designated Agriculture and outside the City's adopted Sphere of Influence. The FredericWALC properties are pending separate Specific Plan and EIR consideration, known as Arroyo Linda Crossroads. The 2000 draft land use map indicated Business Park and Regional Commercial classifications on most of the FredericVALC property within a Specific Plan combining designation, except Open Space and Conservation overlay along the north edge near Branch Mill Road. Residential Hillside integrated into the proposed Specific Plan was not reflected in this prior preliminary General Plan proposal. The Williams property was excluded from the City's prior 2000 draft map. Impacfs of the Proposed Genera/P/ar, The 2001 General Plan Update draft land use map proposes the FredericWALC property be classified Specific Plan and Specific Plan Reserve without underlying land uses prescribed within the City limits and within the proposed Urban Reserve Line and existing SOI. EIR - 55 Item 9.a. - Page 260 The 2001 General PIan Update also proposes that the 200-acre Williams family property further southeast be classified as SP Reserve, subject to approval of SO1 amendment by LAFCO and separate, but coordinated Specific PIan and EIR consideration by the City. These unresolved Specific Planned developments within the City limits and involving 185-acre potential FredericwALC Specific Plan Reserve phased expansion and 200-acre future Williams property Specific Plan Reserve for further expansion are a major new and unique urban growth alternative for the City of Arroyo Grande. These are the only remaining substantial sized non-prime Agriculture undeveloped properties adjoining Arroyo Grande not fragmented like Residential Suburban subdivisions to the north and southeast of Freeway 101, nor urban like Oceano, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach. The magnitude of these potential expansions and the resultant impacts are almost without historic precedent if predominantly non-residential or Mixed-Use development is enabled by Specific Plan. Unlike the three prior large Planned Developments northwest of the older City - Oak Park Acres, Rancho Grande and Royal Oak Estates - Arroyo Linda Crossroads proposes Business Park and certain Regional Commercial Uses oriented to a new El Campo Road Interchange with Freeway 101. With 107 acres undeveloped inside the City and 185 acres outside the City limits but inside the SO1 and URL, the FredericwALC properties propose 292 acres of employment growth and economic development opportunity previously not considered. If 200 acres of Williams property is added, the 492 acre southeasterly urban expansion potential is almost double that of Frederick/ALC alone. In fact, the City could extend physically to the foot of Picacho Hill, based on geographic constraints alone. Environmental impacts and resource constraints require careful consideration, development phasing and comprehensive EIR. These are the basic reasons that Specific Plan, SP Reserve and EIRs are essential for proper land use and planning. The pending Specific Plan proposes primarily non-residential development containing 100 dwellings or an approximate residential population of 300. All new construction would conform to building safety standards and avoid possible natural hazards such as slope stability or landslide hazard on steep slopes. Conceptually, as explained in the Specific Plan and EIR for Arroyo Linda Crossroads, the potential project involves approximately 57,000 sq. ft. of offices; 680,000 sq. ft. of research and development business park use; 55,000 sq ft. of specialty retail; 185,000 sq. ft. of vehicle sales; 210,000 sq. ft. shopping center; 175 hotel/motel rooms; several restaurants and service stations and other visitor and resident-serving commercial uses in two phases of development. The project EIR estimates that phase 1 development in the City would consume 58 acre feetlyear of water resources at full development according to the Specific Plan. Assuming annexation of the 185-acre phase 2 SO1 area, without including Williams properties, accounts for an additional 120 acre feetlyear of water consumption in this portion of the Specific Plan Reserve. Storm drainage and flood control would be provided on site but Specific Planned Development would cumulatively contribute downstream to 10-year peak storm criteria and urban pollutants and potential degradation of the Arroyo Grande Creek water quality. Both on-site and off-site siltation basins, detention or retention ponding would partially mitigate these water quality concerns intercepting storm drainage prior to discharge into the creek system The business park and commercial character of proposed Specific Planned development would potentially generate significant added traffic and an estimated 55 Ibs per day of air quality emissions: Traffic and circulation impacts will contribute significantly to air quality impacts both directly and indirectly by provided new jobs in the region, fueling additional housing demand and requiring commuting from jobs to housing. The essential circulation and transportation infrastructure for the project must include El Campo Road interchange with Freeway 101 and Traffic Way extension for local street connection, but regional and local traffic congestion will EIR - 56 Item 9.a. - Page 261 impact other routes despite these new proposed facilities. (See project EIR, SCH #97081048 for more information). A/fernatives, Eva/uaf/bns and Exp/anaI/bns; a. The undeveloped City portions, zoned RR and RH, the latter subject to Specific Plan, could be classified as SFR-LD-PD C/OS and to enable single family residential low density planned development and Conservation/Open Space. This would encourage low density residential rather than business park or non-residential planned development at either 1 du/1.5 ac. or 1 du/ac. on the hillside parcels currently in the City, excluding steep or vegetated areas as Conservation/Open Space; b. The FredericVALC properties within the City could be classified as MU-SP, BP-SP or RC- SP to enable or encourage a Mixed Use, Business Park or Regional Commercial focus, subject to Specific Plan approval; c. The FredericVALC properties could be classified as SP and SP Reserve, the latter involving the portion outside the City limits but in the City's Sphere of Influence, without prescribing a primary land use classification. This enables the most flexibility but provides less direction to the property owner regarding potential development alternatives to be considered in the Specific Plan; d. The portions of Frederick/ALC properties outside the City could be designated differently than those inside the City such as Conservation/Open Space or Agriculture with or without Specific Plan for undefined urban use potential; and, e. The Williams property further southeast and outside current City Sphere of Influence could be proposed to be added, dependent on coordination or combination with the FredericUALC Specific Plan Reserve or the current County Agriculture classification could be retained or it could be reclassified as C/OS, Conservation/Open Space. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes that these subareas be classified Specific Plan and Specific Plan Reserves without prescribing primary land use designations, a combination of alternate 'c' and 'e'. The potential impacts of Specific Planned development will be determined by project specific EIRs required prior to Specific Plan approvals. Regarding alternatives, the SFR-LD-PD classification alternative 'a,' is essentially the 'no project' alternative, effectively leaving the 1990 residential classifications and substituting Planned Development rather than Specific Plan for the large parcels in the City. Alternative 'b.' would endorse a particular non-residential or mixed-use development option subject to Specific Plan approval. Without benefit of project economic and environmental evaluations, this would be more speculative. Alternative 'd.', with property outside the City retained as ConservationlOpen Space or Agriculture, would be the environmentally superior 'no project' alternative. The inclusion of the Williams property as well as Frederick/ALC, increases the potential for urban expansion but unless and until a Specific Plan and project EIR is prepared and adopted and the properties included in the SO1 are annexed, the large acreage parcels will continue to be Agricultural classified under County jurisdiction. EIR - 57 Item 9.a. - Page 262 9). Va//ey Road Agricu/ture Ex~sling Conditions, Phr Phs and Reguhlions South of Fair Oaks Avenue and Arroyo Grande High School, on both sides of Valley Road, outside the City limits, the County Land Use Element classifies the unincorporated properties as Agriculture, partially Flood Hazard combining district along Arroyo Grande Creek. Because of prime soils and agriculture use, the 141-acre area is excluded from the City's Sphere of Influence despite being literally surrounded by urban developments within the City limits. The 2000 draft land use map excluded this Agriculture enclave reflecting current City limits. The 2001 draft General Plan Update proposes this surrounded Agriculture area remain outside the City's Sphere of Influence designated County Agriculture. The 2001 General Plan Update reflects that inclusion within the Sphere of Influence, implying potential annexation, would be contrary to LAFCO criteria and could be misinterpreted as conducive to Agriculture conversion. The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR propose this area to remain under County jurisdiction and Agriculture classification outside the SO1 and Urban Reserve line, to promote Agriculture preservation. The area to the south to the Los Berros drainage and west to Halcyon Road will also be shown on the General Plan Update as County Agriculture classification. Two relatively minor but important SO1 boundary changes are proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update south of current City limits. One involves an existing Church at the southeast corner of Valley Road and Los Berros Road currently outside the City and LAFCO approved Sphere of Influence. The 2001 Update proposes to include this existing church in the SO1 enabling annexation to the City. The other involves an undeveloped triangular shaped 1.7 acre parcel on the east side of Halcyon Road south of an unincorporated area Mobile Home Park, both currently included in the adopted Sphere of Influence. The City does not support the current County Residential Multiple Family classification of the undeveloped triangle nor proposed residential subdivision of the property. Annexation of the undeveloped property is impossible without also including the existing Mobile Home Park adjoining the City, but that has not been proposed. Without annexation, the undeveloped parcel should remain undeveloped, and the City proposes that the 2001 General Plan Update exclude the undeveloped triangle from the SO1 and recombined with the County Agriculture classified property to the southeast. Impah of the Proposed Genera/ Ph The proposed plan is essentially to leave the property outside City SO1 and URL, classified Agriculture in the County jurisdiction. This is the 'no project' alternate, involving no change from current conditions or prior plans, but adding the County Agriculture classification on the Urban Land Use Element map to show the actual and planned use of this enclave surrounded by urban use. There are no environmental impacts associated with this 'no project' alternative despite the map change to show Agriculture use. Altermalives, Eva/ualions and Exp/mlions; a. The Agriculture classified areas could be retained as Ag regardless of prime vs. non- prime soils or current use or ownership; b. The High School owned property could be classified CF, Community Facility and private hillside areas between the High School and Mobile Home Park classified SFR-LD-PD to EIR - 58 Item 9.a. - Page 263 enable consideration of single-family residential, low density, planned development at 1 du/1.5 ac. or 1 du/ac.; c. The properties currently outside the City could remain outside the City's Sphere of Influence and retained as County Agriculture classification; and, d. The County LUE could be amended to enable Residential Suburban development on hillside portions of the area retaining the bulk of Valley Road for Agriculture outside the City's Sphere of Influence implying no potential additional annexation. The reclassification of High School owned property as Community Facility alternative 'b.' and retention of Agriculture outside the City's SOI, alternative 'c' is the proposed 2001 Update, and effectively the 'no project' alternative. The hillside non-prime Agriculture as well as the prime cultivated, irrigated bottomlands are retained as Agriculture. This is the environmentally superior, 'no project' alternative compared to possible non-prime Ag land conversion for Residential Hillside or County Residential Suburban development. 10 .) Fard Avenue South of Soto Sports Complex, the 1990 General Plan indicates Residential Suburban within a Specific Plan for an un-subdivided 10-acre agricultural property adjoining residential Planned Development to the west and Multiple Family subdivisions to the south and east along Farroll Avenue. The 2000 draft land use map designated this undeveloped agricultural property as Multiple Family without the PD or SP combining district. The City has received preliminary proposal from the property owner for a Residential Suburban conventional subdivision of this remaining agricultural property, subject to Specific Plan approval required by the 1990 General Plan, enabling 2.5 du/ac. or 25 dwellings. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes SFR-LM-PD with PD rather than Specific Plan combining designation to encourage cluster residential Planned Development, including possible expansion of Soto Sports Complex or private park and recreation or ponding basin potential. Impacts of the Proposed Genera/ P/an Rather than conventional subdivision into 25 large lots, the proposed 2001 General Plan Update encourages an equal or greater number of smaller Single Family Residential lots on a portion of the property with the remainder devoted to expansion of park and recreation/sports complex and ponding basin facilities. This is similar to the 'no project' alternative, enabling the same density of residential use requiring Specific Plan as provided in the 1990 General Plan, but encouraging cluster to retain functional open space. Despite current agricultural use, the property does not involve prime Ag soils and is level with no apparent geophysical constraints to development. Population and housing would be proportional to the development intensity of residential use. The proposed SFR-LM-PD would accommodate approximately 25 homes, compared to alternative higher density residential potential of 45 or 90 dwellings if classified SFR-MD-PD or MFR-MH-PD. No slope stability risk is apparent and liquifrcation risk will be evaluated prior to any Planned Development. Water resources for cumulative development potential is an impact concern, but urban use will reduce water consumption compared to current irrigated agricultural use on this site. Storm drainage and water quality concerns can be mitigated on site with potential ponding and recharge basin or off site. EIR - 59 Item 9.a. - Page 264 Potential development of 25 dwellings implies 250 trips per day traffic impacts and less than 10 Ibs, per day of air quality emissions. Single Family Residential Planned Development is inherently automobile oriented, a pattern already established by adjoining existing uses. Because of prior agricultural use, there are no biological resources or cultural resources apparent on the property. There are no apparent safety hazards such as flooding or wildland fire affecting this property and liquefaction/settlement risk will require site-specific geotechnical study. Noise and lighting glare particularly from night events at Soto Sports Complex adjoining to the north is an impact issue that will require mitigation as part of Planned Development. Public services and utilities are available to the property, surrounded by residential development, but impacts on these facilities and services will be off-set by fees for school, park, fire, drainage, water, and sewer. Although Planned Development will be subject to design review and special site planning and cluster development would be aesthetically attractive, the conversion from agricultural use is a degradation to existing rural character. Recreation impacts of potential Planned Development may be mitigated by in-lieu fees, but opportunity for park and ponding expansion and public or private recreational facilities as part of Planned Development is apparent on this site. Provision for public access to Soto Sports Complex off Farroll Avenue should be considered with PD approval. A/ternalives, Evdualions and Exp/analions: a. Classify the parcel Ag and allow one unit; b. Classify the property SFR-VLD or LD-PD or SP and enable very low or low density single family residential planned development ranging from 1 du12.5 ac., 1 du/1.5 ac., 1 dulac. implying from 4 to 10 lots, subject to PD or Specific Plan approval; c. Classify the parcel SFR-LM or MD enabling single-family residential subdivision at 2.5 dulac. or 4.5 dulac. approximately 25 to 45 homes, with or without PD or SP; d. Classify the ten acres as half CF and half MFR. Community Facilities would imply expansion of Soto Sports Complex park and ponding basins or other recreation or institutional uses. Multiple Family Residential would enable duplex, four-plex or apartment uses at 9 dulac. or 45+/- units on 5 acres or 90 units on 10 acres; and, e. Classify as PD or SP without primary land use designation enabling Mixed Use, special housing and/or institutional uses, depending on PD or Specific Plan approval by the City. Regarding alternatives, the environmentally superior choice would be 'a', retaining agriculture use and allowing only one dwelling under the Ag classification. Lower density Single Family Residential classifications allowing 1 du12.5 ac. or 1 dulac., enabling 4 to 10 dwellings, would also reduce development impacts compared to the 25 dwellings proposed. Conversely, allowing 4.5 du/ac. or 9 dulac., increasing development potential to 45 or 90 homes, are alternatives that would increase development impacts. Any Planned Development will require project environmental determination and may require project EIR if project significant impacts are apparent. The alternative of requiring a Specific Plan on this 10-acre "infill" site is considered equivalent to Planned Development, the latter preferred as a combining zoning designation encouraging cluster residential or variations to conventional subdivision. In any event, the project specific environmental determination or EIR will define mitigation measures appropriate for the PD design. EIR - 60 Item 9.a. - Page 265 1 1. ) East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use CorrYor Boundafles E~sting Condif/ons, P&r P/ms and Reguhths The 1990 General Plan land use map classifies most of East Grand Avenue west of Freeway 101 as General Commercial adjoining residential areas to the north and south. A small portion of the GC classified area is shown within a Specific Plan area now known as Berry Gardens. The 2000 draft land use map initiated consideration of a new Mixed Use Corridor classification along East Grand Avenue with Specific Plan combining designations for the Mixed-Use area west of Juniper and a large Specific Plan overlay for the residential and commercial zoned triangle south of 101, east of Halcyon Avenue and including East Grand Avenue frontage: The boundaries and abutting land uses of the Mixed-Use corridor require clarification or changes to better reflect existing and proposed land use refinements currently being considered by the City without Specific Plan combining designations. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes that the Single Family Residential developed areas south and north of the East Grand Avenue Mixed Use Corridor should remain SFR-MD classifications rather than Multiple Family Residential or Mixed Use. The Update also excludes the Specific Plan overlay or PD combining designation as unnecessary and would duplicate individual property development design review and require cooperation of many separate owners, effectively discouraging Mixed Use. Distinct mixtures of uses and property development standards will be formulated for each segment of the East Grand Avenue corridor; Gateway, Midway and Highway subareas. The City will formulate these design and development guidelines as a refinement to Mixed Use zoning consideration after General Plan Update adoption. Impacts offhe Proposed Genera/ P%n The retention of existing Single-Family Residential developed areas north and south of Grand Svenue Mixed Use corridor eliminates potential significant changes to Multiple Family Residential o: Mixed Use implying substantial redevelopment. This is essentially the environmentally superior, 'no project' alternative reflecting existing use. The reclassification of East Grand Avenue corridor as "Mixed-Use" rather than General Commercial is considered a beneficial land use and planning change adding possible retail, office, institutional and residential uses to already allowed general and highway commercial uses. The increased diversity of permitted uses, yet to be resolved by Development Code and zoning amendments, will however, involve some potential adverse impacts as well. The population and housing enabled by Mixed Use are somewhat speculative to estimate, but clearly enable substantial multi-family units above office and commercial or even intermixed on a property-by- property pattern. This inherently implies potential land use compatibility concerns and increases possible development intensity and density. If multiple family uses are proposed on 25% of current commercial zoned and undeveloped or potentially redeveloped large parcels, the cumulative impacts are considerable for housing and population projections. EIR - 61 Item 9.a. - Page 266 Although only estimates, for example, Traffic Analysis Zone land use projections for Gateway, Midway and Highway segments of East Grand Avenue Mixed Use Corridor (TAZ #38, 46 and 51, respectively) are itemized below: Potential Potential MFR / 60 / Dwelling units I Office 1 40000 ( Square ft. Potential I Retail 1 80000 Existing I SF / 4 Square ft. Dwelling Units I Potential Potential Potential Combining these three projections for potential use, in addition to existing, indicates approximately 140 new dwelling units, 70,000 square feet of added office space, and 125,000 sq. ft. of new retail space, as well as 15 acres of undefined Mixed Uses and at least 10 auto service commercial establishments or restaurants. Assuming 2.5 persons per multiple family dwelling average household population reveals that the residential component of estimated Mixed Use would accommodate about 350 added population. Almost 200,000 sq. ft. of added office and/or retail also implies at least 400 new jobs (at 1 employee per 500 sq. ft). Mixed Use encourages shorter commutes, live-work combinations and more transit efficient land use but the added residential potential is off-set by reduction of alternative General Commercial uses. The impacts of Mixed Use are substantial compared to undeveloped or underdeveloped existing use but probably similar to or less than alternative General Commercial development. In any event, each Mixed Use project will require an environmental determination to evaluate actual proposed development and resultant impacts. Potential Potential Potential Potential In general, current construction standards would mitigate seismic and building safety concerns. Water consumption will be determined based on use probably but not substantially different than possible General Commercial: Water resources for cumulative development remains a potential significant issue. Controlled storm drainage from Mixed Use development will not be significantly different than from the General Commercial development alternative, but will increase the cumulative need for additional storm water detention and/or retention. Either on-site private or increased off-site public ponding basin capacity will be needed. MFR Office Retail Traffic generation and mitigation is the single most apparent adverse impact issue with either Mixed Use or General Commercial intensification along this already congested corridor. Project mitigation will be evaluated individually to reduce trip generation and correct existing and potential circulation deficiencies to the degree feasible. It is apparent, however, that either Mixed Use or alternative General Commercial developments would contribute to intersections and segments already deficient to LOS 'C' criteria. Even with no additional local development, this corridor is a regional arterial experiencing continued external trip increases despite existing circulation deficiencies. MFR Office Retail Other Commercial The continued planning of Mixed Use rather than strip General Commercial development may require a statement of overriding considerations to enable implementation involving significant adverse traffic as well as air quality impacts. APCD is very supportive toward Mixed Use and transit efficient development versus conventional strip commercial use and recognizes the 50 20000 40000 EIR - 62 Dwelling Units Square ft. Square ft. 30 10000 5000 10 Dwelling units Square ft. Square ft. Auto service repairlrestaurants Item 9.a. - Page 267 comparative advantages and trip reduction achieved by the proposed type of development, despite air quality compliance problems on a regional basis. Biological resources are minimal on most undeveloped or partially developed properties but would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. Similarly, few or no hazards are apparent in the Mixed Use corridor area. Noise is a potential site planning and environmental issue particularly for residential uses exposed to high volume arterial traffic noise sources, but can be mitigated by site planning and construction design measures. Energy and mineral resources are not at issue. Public services, utilities and facilities are generally adequate or planned for deficiency correcting capital improvements in any event. (Some water, sewer, drainage and poter~tial undergrounding of overhead utilities is already part of City Capital Improvement Program and Redevelopment Implementation Strategy). School and park and recreation impacts may be mitigated by fee payments or project level mitigation. Mixed Use is generally more aesthetic and attractive than General Commercial alternative development but mitigated by project design review requirements in any event. Cultural resources are not a major concern in this partially developed General Commercial setting. Mixed-Use corridor impact potential are cumulatively significant although composed of individual projects which may be less than significant with appropriate traffic, noise, drainage and infrastructure mitigation measures. The impacts of alternative General Commercial, the 'no project' alternative would, however, be equal or greater in most regards. A/ternatives, Eva/uaI/ons and Exp/anations: a. Single family residential developed subdivisions not fronting on Grand Avenue can be excluded from the MU, Mixed Use classification and retained a SFR or reclassified and slowly redeveloped as MFR; 6. The large Specific Plan combining designation overlays at the Gateway and Highway ends of the Grand Avenue Mixed-use corridor could be considered as individual PD, planned developments, rather than a prerequisite Specific Plan; c. The Grand Avenue corridor could distinguish between Gateway, Midway and Highway segments by different permitted commercial, office, institutional and residential uses; d. The entire Mixed-Use corridor could be proposed as one or more Specific Plan areas, subject to City approval of unspecified private proposals, but requiring many adjoining owners to coordinate and prepare a cooperative plan prior to substantial development; 0 r, e. Mixed Use could be proposed on individual parcels without any prerequisite Specific Plan or Planned Development but controlled by site plan and design review. Regarding alternative 'a', the City does not intend to encourage nor convert stable Single Family Residential neighborhoods or blocks to scattered Multiple Family residential developments or total redevelopment. There is ample inventory of undeveloped and underdeveloped General Commercial property to enable Multiple family residential development as part of Mixed Use corridor. The density of separate MFR within MU classified areas can be 9 to 14 du/ac. or even higher for special needs housing. The proportion of multi-family, office, commercial and other uses in the Mixed-Use developments will be at the discretion of the developer subject to City approval. With 15 acres estimated as Mixed Use, and assuming 25% MFR at 10 du/ac. would enable 375'dwellings in addition to the estimated 140 new dwellings on separate properties. This reveals that more than 500 units could be developed to house more than 1000 residents along EIR - 63 Item 9.a. - Page 268 the East Grand Avenue Mixed Use corridor if this type of housing proves marketable. This potential is more than ample without redevelopment or encroachment into stable SFR neighborhoods. As previously noted, the City intends to avoid redundant Specific Plan or Planned Development processes and believes that Mixed Use design review, development guidelines and environmental determinations on a project specific, property specific basis will be sufficient to achieve coordinated compatible uses and quality design. The City intends to prescribe certain permitted and prohibited uses, pedestrian scale streetscape design and architectural guidelines and where necessary, basic land use and site plan and circulation and parking criteria to enable coordination or cooperation of several adjoining properties. This will avoid the complicated process of prerequisite Specific Plans or Planned Developments involving many owners to prepare a cooperative plan prior to substantial individual development. Such a requirement could deter or delay desired Mixed Use development on parcels already pursuing commercial and office developments. Mixed Use corridor is considered the environmentally superior alternative compared to General Commercial, but the use controls can be as flexible or rigid and as open or closed to increased intensity as the City defines as desirable, and developers find feasible. 12. ) E/ Camino Rea/ E~sfing Condfionbns, Pr/br P/'s and Regu/al/bns The frontage of El Camino Real along the south side of Freeway 101 is designated with six different land use classifications on the 1990 General Plan land use map. Between Oak Park Road and Brisco Road, the frontage is classified General Commercial, Office, Multiple Family, Single Family and Industrial. From Brisco Road to Grand Avenue, the frontage of El Camino Real is Public Facility for the cemetery and General Commercial east of Halcyon Road to Grand Avenue. The 2000 draft land use map showed most of this corridor as Regional Commercial, but segments were also classified Single and Multi-Family, Community Facility and Mixed-Use with Specific Plan combining designation. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes to classify the entire El Camino Real frontage Mixed Use including residential and office as well as existing Industrial and General Commercial uses. A Specific Plan or Planned Development on these relatively small parcels is unnecessary because it could effectively discourage more appropriate Mixed-Use proposals on individual ownership. The City will instead control Mixed-Use by Conditional Use Permit, a simpler process than PD or SP. Only the cemetery between Brisco Road and Halcyon Avenue southwest of El Camino Real would be classified Community Facility to reflect its public ownership and specific purpose. Impacts offhe Genera/ P/an Along most of El Camino Real the developed properties, including homes, condos, multiple family residential, office, commercial service, highway and tourist service such as motel and restaurants, service station, auto repair and General Commercial or Industrial uses, lumber, hardware, truck rental and outdoor furniture to name a few would all be conforming uses. New Business Park, Regional Commercial, auto sales and other alternative uses could be considered as permitted or conditional uses when this Mixed Use classification and zoning regulations are prepared for City adoption subsequent to the General Plan. EIR - 64 Item 9.a. - Page 269 Any substantial new Mixed Use commercial or industrial development will require environmental determination and if found to involve potential significant impacts, a project EIR. It is difficult to speculate what such Mixed Use Developments might contain, but if redevelopment of existing uses are proposed, the impacts would consider the net increases in traffic, emissions, noise, drainage, etc. Because of proximity to Freeway 101, additional residential use along the El Camino Real corridor is considered unlikely. In general, office, commercial or industrial construction standards would mitigate seismic and building safety concerns, water resource consumption would be equivalent to Industrial use but cumulative development remains a potential significant issue. Controlled storm drainage from Mixed Use development will be similar to alternative Industrial use, but either would increase the cumulative need for more detention and/or retention ponds. Traffic generation and mitigation is the single most apparent significant impact issue along this already congested corridor. Project mitigation measures will be evaluated with individual projects to the degree feasible, but substantial new trip generation would impact intersections and segments already seriously deficient to LOS 'C' criteria. Even with no additional area development, Brisco and Halcyon Roads and El Camino Real segments and intersections will continue to experience external trip increases despite these circulation deficiencies. Overriding considerations may be required for traffic and air quality impacts if Mixed Use development proposed is desired. Biological resources and cultural resources are minimal on these partially developed properties and would be evaluated on a project basis. Few or no hazards are apparent. Noise and aesthetics concerns will be particularly important adjoining either residential or Ocean View Elementary School between Hillcrest Avenue and Brisco Road. Energy and mineral resources are not at issue, nor are public services, utilities and facilities for anticipated Mixed Uses. Some water, sewer, drainage and utility system undergrounding are part of City Capital Improvement Program and Redevelopment Implementation Strategy. Mixed Use is generally more aesthetically attractive than Industrial alternative but project design review requirement will assure mitigation in any event. A fternfivees, Evafuafions and Exphna fions: a. Existing Office, residential, Community Facility (cemetery), commercial and industrial areas could be classified accordingly as 0, SFR, MFR, CF, and RC and/or an Industrial or different service commercial classification created similar to those used in the 1990 plan; b. The entire frontage, excluding the cemetery which would be classified CF, could be designated MU to enable mixed use including existing and potential residential or precluding new residentiaf; c. The industrial area could be considered for Regional Commercial with or without Specific Plan or Planned Development combining designation, subject to circulation improvements as part of Brisco and Halcyon Road/Freeway 101 interchange; and, d. The Industrial area could be classified as a Specific Plan area without prescribing land use but requiring coordination or cooperation from numerous owners prior to further development. The Mixed Use classification is considered environmentally superior to the 'no project' alternative of retaining the Industrial and General Commercial classifications. MU enables existing uses to remain or diverse Mixed Use to be considered as replacement developments. Regarding EIR - 65 Item 9.a. - Page 270 alternative 'c', the intensity of Regional Commercial development is considered infeasible without major freeway access and circulation improvement alternative proposed in the Brisco and Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue Project Study Report (PSR). Similarly, requiring a Specific Plan for several adjacent ownerships prior to further development on individual properties could be a deterrent to Mixed Use development and phasing development or traffic mitigation would be difficult, if feasible. EIR - 66 Item 9.a. - Page 271 E. Relationshis Bebeen Local Short Term Uses and Enhancement of Lons Term Productiviw The 2001 General Plan Update continues and reinforces the 1990 General Plan policy of Agriculture Preservation and Open Space Conservation balanced with the need for managed community growth and development. It is recognized that potentially significant impacts are associated with regional population growth and continued urbanization including water resources, air quality, and transportation/circulation. The City believes that unincorporated area Residential Rural and Suburban development alternatives in the County are far more damaging. The 2001 General Plan Update adds an important optional element to the prior 1990 General Plan defining policies to promote Agriculture preservation in the City and adjoining County areas within the City's Area of Environmental Concern. The City policies establish prime agricultural soils capability and enhancement of existing or potential long-term productivity as more important objectives than conversion of such natural resources for local short-term urban, suburban or rural uses. Past development, both in the City and in unincorporated portions of its Area of Environmental Concern, have contributed to some inefficient and incomplete development patterns including "leapfrog" subdivisions, rural and suburban fragmentation and conflicts between agriculture and other uses. But, continuing these patterns would clearly consume some of the richest and most productive soils and displace or diminish important economic and environmental contributions of Agriculture to the community and region. Conversely, however, the continued development of alternative residential rural and suburban areas adjoining the City to current County standards will result in irreversible environmental changes clearly worse than those of the proposed 2001 General Plan Update. Preservation of agricultural land in the City, for example, will be ineffective if County Ag areas are converted or economical water resources diverted to rural and suburban uses. Circulation system deficiency correction to achieve acceptable Levels of Service will require Caltrans, SLOCOG and County improvements and regional transportation changes beyond the control of the City. Without such improvements and changes, the traffic congestion and air quality degradation will worsen, regardless of City plans and standards. The City shares the responsibility of providing public facilities and services such as water, sewer, fire, police, parks and recreation and planning with numerous other adjacent jurisdictions and agencies. City facilities and services are already deficient in many areas due to prior growth and development without adequate mitigation. The potential for mutually beneficial joint powers or even merger of many services to provide more efficient coordinated service systems should be continually considered within the Five Cities area. Concurrently, however, these jurisdictions should recognize the apparent potential of Nipomo and the Mesa area becoming part of even larger regional growth problems unless controlled by the County. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes both changes to future urban reserve and better Planning Area Standards for the County's Arroyo Grande Fringe Areas. Without the County's cooperation in both Agriculture preservation and control of rural and suburban sprawl, the City's 2001 General Plan Update will be ineffective. The City must promote this long-term perspective and spirit of governmental cooperation to properly manage population growth and development pressures which are regional in nature. The County must be a primary partner with the City of Arroyo Grande in the implementation of the ZOO1 General Plan Update, and other agencies' cooperation must be focused to achieve common, beneficial development goals, such as sustainable use within the resource and infrastructure constraints apparent in the region. EIR - 67 Item 9.a. - Page 272 F. Effects Determined Not Sisnificant Of the 15 topics identified in the December 7, 2000 Notice of Preparation, only two (2) were determined "Not Significant:" VIII) Enerqv and Mineral Resources - The 2001 Update does not differ from the adopted 1990 General plan regarding impacts on these resources and the EIR will not repeat 1990 EIR discussion; and, X) Noise - The 2001 General Plan Update and EIR will identify areas of substantial traffic increases that will contribute to increased noise levels, where these differ from the adopted 1990 General Plan Noise Element, if any. None of these changes are expected to involve exposure of people to severe noise levels. As discussed in C. General Description of Impact Topics, ten (10) of the 15 topics have been described herein as "Potentially Significant unless Mitigated: (or 'Significant - but Mitigable': in the 1990 final EIR). The summary Table EIR-1 identifies these as "Less than Significant" assuming recommended mitigation: I. Land Use and Planning 11. Population and Housing 111. Geophvsical VII. Biolosical Resources IX. Hazards XI. Public Services XII. Utility and Service Svstems XIII. Aesthetics XV. Recreation The three topics found to be "Potentially Significant and Unavoidable" or possibly not capable of mitigation to "Less than Significant" based on currently available information, are: IV. Water Resources V. Air Quality VI. Transportation/Circulation The 2001 General Plan Update appears to propose population growth and development that will approach or exceed current water resources, air quality standards, circulation system capacities and public service and facility capabilities. The latter impacts may be mitigated to less than significant if the City can secure regional cooperation and growth management, particularly from the County and other involved agencies. The City of Arroyo Grande is already a victim of urban, suburban and rural sprawl, but, believes that more compact urban form and revitalization of already converted and partially developed urban areas for more intensive Mixed-Use is a more functional land use and circulation plan than continued low density sprawl. The focus of the City's 2001 General Plan Update is the Urban Area Land Use Element which must be considered in context with the surrounding, mostly unincorporated County Area of Environmental Concern. It is apparent that the short-term local benefit of more compact and efficient urban use will be overwhelmed by degradation of long-term productivity if alternative rural and suburban development patterns prevalent in the County continue. EIR - 68 Item 9.a. - Page 273 Pursuant to Section 15064(a)(2) the determination of one or more significant effects shall require the City and other responsible agencies to make findings under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project. These sections are cited below to indicate the possible findings: "15091. Findinss. (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, special or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The findings in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives." "15093. Statement of Overridina Considerations. (a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the records of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination." EIR - 69 Item 9.a. - Page 274 6. Growth Inducins Im~acts of the Prouosed 2001 General Pfan Update Planning for future urban growth inherently involves proposals that will foster or accelerate such growth. Land use enhancement and intensification requires infrastructure and public service provision that can be abused or utilized in unintended ways. Construction of additional freeway lanes or ramps to reduce current congestion, for example, can facilitate longer trips, induce new development and transfer congestion to different streets. Expenditures on circulation and parking facilities can encourage more vehicle use rather than alternative transportation. Similarly, developing supplemental water resources to stabilize Agriculture use of groundwater can be viewed as fundamentally growth-inducing because agriculture cannot economically compete with potential reallocation for urban uses. Major wastewater collection and treatment facilities to improve water quality also tend to induce more construction in the service area to use the available capacity and help pay for operations. Even the provision of improved fire protection, law enforcement and leisure facilities are somewhat growth inducing, attracting, continued growth and development to the areas of improvement. In this context, it is evident that regional growth management must involve both planned improvements and more effective land use regulation. One without the other is usually counterproductive or "growth inducing". H, Cumulative Effects Section 15130 of CEQA requires that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significant. The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as much detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. Chapter D, of this EIR describes the 12 Land Use Study Areas that involve changes from the 1990 adopted General Plan to the proposed 2001 General Pfan Update. Base on these proposed changes, the reasonably anticipated future projects producing cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the City are summarized on Table EIR-2. The summary of the expected environmental effects found significant is contained in Chapter C of this EIR, and the importance of individual changes composing the cumulative impacts can be considered proportional to the relative capacity of the individual change compared to the total of all alternatives combined. The final analysis of the cumulative impact of the relevant component projects examines the reasonable options available to the City for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of the proposed 2001 General Plan Update, contained as the conclusion of this Chapter G. Table EIR-2 is an approximate summary of cumulative projects in the 12 Land Use Study Areas involving changes from 1990 adopted to proposed 2001 General Plan Update. Although these component projects may or may not be proposed at the individual "impact magnitude estimatedff, the cumulative impacts would be roughly proportional to the relative size versus the total development accommodated by the 2001 General Plan Update. EIR - 70 Item 9.a. - Page 275 Table EIR - 2 - Land Use Study Area Refer to Map 4 [Number / Name 1 Project I Impact Magnitude 1. 2. 3. 4. Oak Park/James Rancho GrandelNoyes 5. 6. 7. Rancho GrandeILaCanada Roval Oak Estates 8. 9, 10. 11, 12. Adding the estimated additional dwelling units outlined reveals a range of 1350 to 1790 dwellings. Thus a potential individual project proposing 50 dwelling units would be less than 3% to 4% of the cumulative total while a project involving 500 dwellings would represent from 30 to 40% of the total. Composition Church and School SFR-LD-Planned I I E. Village Core I Creekside times 2 1 8DU - 66 ksf I Northern SOI/County Highway 227 portion Camino Mercado N & W Village Core I Indust. Based on these assumptions of relative impact magnitude, it is apparent that the major potential residential impact area involves Land Use Study Area 5, the Northern SO1 in the County, proposed to be excluded from the City's Sphere and its potential reduced by 2 1/2 acre minimum lot Planning Area Standard. This area alone accounts for more than 50% of the residential impact potential. None 35 du max Dvt. C/OS-5-PD SFR-LD-PD & E. Cherry & Myrtle S. Traffic Way Cherry E. of Traffic a. FredericWALC b, FredrickIALC (185 ac. if annexed) c. Williams Prop (201 ac. if added) Valley Road Ag. Farroll Avenue E. Grand Avenue El Camino Real 1 EIR - 71 5du 20d u c/os County RS* SFR-LD-PD (if annexed) MU-PD (10ac +/-) Existinq SFR 280 to 700du* 60du (if annexed) 50du + 100/ksf. Office or comml. None MFR-HD SFR-LD, to MD MU Ag Specific Plan Specific Plan Reserve* Specific Plan Reserve* (if SO1 & annexed) County Agricultural SFR-LM or MD-PD Existing SFR MU-Add to Corridor MU-Gateway Parcels MU-Add to Corridor MU-Former 50 du 20 to 95 du 50du + lOOksf None 50du + 500ksf office/BP & RC 50du + lOOOksf office BP & RC 50du +/- 1000ksf (estimated @ same as ALC Phase 2) None 25 to 45 du None 140du + 200k 375du -I- 200k 50du + 30k 50du + lOOk Item 9.a. - Page 276 The single-most important potential residential impact area within the City is Land Use Study Area 11, the E. Grand Avenue Mixed Use Corridor where up to 500 new multiple family dwellings are considered possible, representing 30 to 40% of the cumulative total. The impact of all other Land Use Study areas combined is less than 25% of the total, with the typical individual project of less than 50 dwellings composing less than 3 to 4% of the total. Adding the estimated additional non-residential development outlined in Table EIR-2 reveals a potential for or approximately 3300 ksf or 3.3 million sq ft. of office, business park, commercial and other non-residential cumulative development. Thus a potential typical individual project enabling 66,000 sq.ft. of office and commercial space represents 2% for the cumulative total, (The proposed Creekside Center, on the east side of the Village, for example, proposes 33,000 sq.ft. of commercial and office space and would be 1% of total cumulative non-residential development included in the estimate). The significant impacts identified in this EIR include: 1V Water resources, V Air Quality and VI Transportation/Circulation, each requiring a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 15093 and/or one of the findings of CEQA Section 15091. Regarding Water Resources, the available City-wide water supply of 3490 ac.ft. should be adequate for projected 2001 General Plan Update build-out population up to 20,000 provided that average pre capita consumption does not exceed 160 gpd/person and current entitlements and allocations are not reduced. Because proposed development is incremental and water use can be monitored annually, the City can determine well in advance whether average per capita use is achieved or exceeded. But because many area agencies and individuals use the groundwater resources including Agriculture and County Residential Rural and Suburban users, this resource may be difficult to monitor, measure and/or reallocate if overdraft is suspected. Agriculture is the primary user and many opportun'ities for improved irrigation efficiency and conservation could be considered before reallocation or extended overdrafting produce permanent damage to the groundwater basin capacity. The issue is one of major regional importance but not substantially in the control of the City. Furthermore, the no project alternative, leaving the 1990 General Plan in effect, does not reduce the population potential of the City nor influence the other potential users to avoid significant effects, The City's largest single residential use potential is in the East Grand Avenue Mixed Use Corridor, which probably will not develop the maximum of over 500 dwellings included in this cumulative estimate, nor will multiple family development likely use as much water per capita as historic low density development. The County has jurisdiction over the unincorporated Arroyo Grande Fringe Area containing the Residential Rural and Residential Suburban areas that represent more than half the estimated cumulative water resource consumption potential and storm drainage degradation to water quality on Meadow, Tally Ho and Arroyo Grande Creeks, upstream of the City of Arroyo Grande. Regarding Air Quality and Circulation, the projects with the largest individual contributions to regional traffic and therefore mobile pollution emissions are Land Use Study Area 8, the Frederick/ALC and Williams Properties where project Specific Plans and future EIRs and multi- agency approvals will be considered prior to proposed urban development. In the City, the next most significant contributor to cumulative traffic and air quality impacts is the Mixed Use corridor development of East Grand Avenue, but the alternative of retaining General Commercial pursuant to the 1990 plan would produce equal or greater cumulative traffic and air quality impacts. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District strongly encourages compact, mixed use development along transit corridors such as Grand Avenue and, along with the City, will have the EIR - 72 Item 9.a. - Page 277 opportunity to review proposed projects to determine appropriate mitigation measures as Mixed Use development is pursued. While both these non-residential project areas (ALC/Williams and E, Grand Avenue) may appear to be significant contributors to cumulative traffic and air quality generation, in a regional perspective they are also the largest opportunities in South County to reduce trip length. By creating major new employment areas and intercepting or preventing longer commute patterns to San Luis Obispo or Santa Maria, these two potential projects may actually reduce the air quality and circulation problems that continued sprawl and job/housing imbalance characteristics of current plans imply. In any event, it is again apparent that the County has jurisdiction over Nipomo, the Mesa and Arroyo Grande Fringe Areas where the bulk of the Residential sprawl pattern is now emerging, and that the City cannot control the dispersed regional development pattern. Nonetheless, the City may control the potential for more compact urban alternatives now proposed: The City should carefully evaluate the environmental consequences of not enabling Frederick/ALC and/or Williams Properties expansions along the 101 corridor. I. Other Agencies Consulted (Contact Person) City of Pismo Beach City of Grover Beach County of San Luis Obispo County Fire DepartmentICDF Lucia Mar Unified School District Methodist Church Camp Manager John Wallace Associates City Fire and Building Department City Public Works Department County Engineering/Transportation City Economic Development Dept. City Administration City Police Department Regional Water Quality Control Board San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (Scott Graham, Associate Planner) (Ned Rogoway, Interim Planning Director) (Warren Hoag, Senior Planner) (Gilbert Portillo) (Mike Sears, Deputy Superintendent) (Steve Talent) (Mike Nunley, Rob Miller, Craig Campbell &other staff) (Terry Fibish, Chief) (Don Spagnola & staff) (Jason Gillespie, Transit Planner) Diane Sheeley, Director) (Steve Adams, City Manager) Rick TerBorch, Chief) (Howard Koln, Basin Planner) (Robert Carr, Director) EIR - 73 Item 9.a. - Page 278